In Hegel and Heidegger on Time, Ioannis Trisokkas sets out a sustained examination of how two different philosophical architectures render time intelligible and what follows for ontology when time is either granted or denied the status of a grounding horizon.
The book does not present a catalogue of positions or a tidy comparison, but rather follows the internal logic by which Heidegger’s early analyses lead him to oppose Hegel, and by which Hegel’s systematic commitments resist being re-inscribed within Heidegger’s vocabulary. The central claim guiding the exposition is straightforward: the dispute is not primarily about competing definitions of time but about the place of time within the order of reasons. For Heidegger, the intelligibility of being is inseparable from the finite ecstatic unity called temporality; for Hegel, the intelligibility of being is inseparable from the self-mediating universality called the concept. Once the disagreement is located at this level, the usual contrast—vulgar time versus originary temporality—takes on a different function, becoming a symptom of a deeper divergence about what philosophy requires in order to think being as such.
Trisokkas begins from the phenomenological sequence in Heidegger’s early work: the movement from everyday time-reckoning to world-time and from world-time to temporality. The aim is not to isolate a taxonomy but to show how each layer presupposes another and how the dominance of measured time rests upon, while covering over, a more primordial structure. In everyday practice, time is not first encountered as a homogeneous series of identical units but as the articulated environment of tasks, deadlines, seasons, and occasions. What appears in ordinary concern is a world in which events are dated, intervals are spanned, and significance is distributed; only on this basis does explicit measurement acquire sense. The clock, as the instrument of standardization, renders explicit something already operative in practical orientation, but it also transforms that orientation into a sequence of countable nows. Heidegger’s argument, reconstructed with care, emphasizes that this transformation is not a neutral translation: it privileges a present-at-hand representation of time that abstracts from the conditions that allow time to be lived as a horizon of action and understanding. Temporality, in turn, is not an additional entity behind the scenes but the name for the finite, ecstatic unity—retaining, enpresenting, awaiting—by which Dasein can have a world at all. It is this unity that makes the derivative practices of measurement intelligible; it is also this unity that comes into view when the everyday covering-over of finitude is interrupted.
On this basis, Trisokkas considers what becomes of the Hegel question. If the intelligibility of being requires temporality, then any ontology that does not ground itself in temporal finitude must, by Heidegger’s lights, miss the decisive point. The engagement with Hegel in Heidegger’s lectures, writings, and marginalia is shaped by this orientation. It is not a matter of assigning to Hegel a simplistic notion of time; rather, it is a matter of indicating that, within Hegel’s system, time is positioned as a necessary moment that is ultimately comprehended in the movement of the concept. The issue, then, is not whether Hegel recognizes the reality of time and history; he does. The issue is whether time is the condition under which being becomes intelligible, or whether time is that which is grasped within a more basic structure of intelligibility. Heidegger claims the former; Hegel, as interpreted by Heidegger and defended in important respects by Trisokkas, claims the latter. The book’s contribution lies in showing how this difference organizes the interpretations and why it cannot be reduced to a quarrel over definitions.
A large portion of the analysis is devoted to the internal economy of Heidegger’s early account. Attention is given to the way world-time exhibits four marks—datability, spannedness, significance, publicness—that clarify how time is lived before it is measured. Datability indicates that events are situated as this-then or that-then rather than as anonymous points; spannedness indicates that intervals matter as stretches of activity, not merely as distances between numbers; significance indicates that times are for something within a nexus of equipment and purposes; publicness indicates that time is shared, coordinated, and mutually addressed. These features are not optional accessories but the grammar of involvement that gives the clock a role to play. When the clock translates involvement into a uniform succession, it makes possible new forms of coordination and calculation, but it also replaces the horizon of concern with a spatialized image. The well-known distinction between the present-at-hand and the ready-to-hand is therefore not merely ontological; it governs the understanding of time as such. Trisokkas’s reconstruction underscores that for Heidegger the primacy of temporality is another way of saying that the meaning of being is disclosed within the finite horizons of care and projection. This is what will later justify, for Heidegger, the judgment that Hegel remains within metaphysics: he treats the condition of intelligibility as conceptual rather than temporal.
Trisokkas is careful to separate the question of accuracy from the question of method. One can ask whether Heidegger reads Hegel correctly, and one can ask whether the criteria by which Heidegger judges Hegel are themselves warranted. The book, while primarily reconstructive, does not avoid these distinctions. Regarding accuracy, Trisokkas argues that Heidegger’s reading is selective but not arbitrary. When Heidegger reads Hegel as subordinating time to the concept, he is pointing to a structural feature of Hegel’s system rather than imposing an external dichotomy. Hegel’s account of time in the Philosophy of Nature presents time as the dialectical counterpart to space, as the negativity that animates becoming; in the development toward spirit, time is not erased but taken up into a higher unity, which is to say, grasped as a moment within a process that is no longer governed by temporal difference as such. Conceptual mediation does not deny history; it orders history under a principle that gives it intelligibility. For Heidegger, this remains insufficient because the ground of intelligibility is not acknowledged as temporal. For Hegel, this is necessary because intelligibility cannot be made to depend on the contingencies of finite existence without ceasing to be intelligibility. Trisokkas renders this conflict cleanly, without the expectation that one discourse can be translated into the other’s terms without loss.
The discussion of Kojève serves as a focal point for clarifying misreadings that have shaped subsequent reception. Kojève’s influential seminars present a Hegel whose concept and history coincide, such that the end of the dialectic appears as the end of time in the strong sense: the completion of a process beyond which no qualitative novum remains. Trisokkas argues that this identification of concept with time obscures the distinct roles they play in Hegel’s logic. If the concept is the form of self-relation that grounds universality, then it cannot be reduced to the temporal succession through which it may be actualized. To claim otherwise is to replace Hegel’s logic with a historicized anthropology. Heidegger’s criticism of Hegel at least recognizes that Hegel does not make temporality foundational; on this point, Heidegger stands closer to Hegel than Kojève. The significance of this observation is not simply exegetical. It signals that the modern tendency to treat time as the ultimate medium of meaning may be out of step with Hegel’s project. The temptation to resolve differences by temporalization is strong, but Trisokkas presents reasons to treat this as a projection rather than a description.
When the book returns to Heidegger’s own architecture, the emphasis falls again on finitude. The unity of retaining, enpresenting, and awaiting is not a formal triad superimposed on experience; it is what experience becomes when one attends to how possibilities, inheritances, and situations co-constitute a world. The analysis of death is a corollary: only because the horizon is finite can the unity be oriented; only because anticipation sets a limit can the future be more than indefinite extension. Public time, with its serial nows, facilitates a certain form of coordination but also induces evasions characteristic of everydayness. The claim that measurement is derivative is therefore not a polemic against science; it is a description of how meaning is established. In this light, Heidegger’s opposition to Hegel is consistent: a logic that grants primacy to the concept will always appear, from the standpoint of existential temporality, to have bypassed the site where meaning arises. That judgment may be contested; Trisokkas’s interest is to show how it follows.
At several points, Trisokkas reexamines the use of the term vulgar in the early texts. He notes that the force of the term lies not in an evaluation of ordinary life but in a diagnosis of abstraction. The vulgar conception is not false because it is everyday; it is inadequate because it mislocates what makes time intelligible. To object that human practices need the clock is to misunderstand the claim: precisely because practices need coordination does the derivative character of measurement become visible. The argument extends to history as well. If history is understood as a series of dates and intervals, it recapitulates the abstraction. If history is understood as the finite horizon within which being is disclosed, then the abstraction is reversed. Again, this alphabet belongs to Heidegger’s vocabulary; Hegel’s treatment organizes the same materials differently. For Hegel, history cannot be the condition of intelligibility without appealing to what makes history intelligible, and that, in his system, is the concept’s movement. The difference persists because each side takes as basic what the other treats as derived.
The middle sections of the book scrutinize Heidegger’s readings of Hegel’s logic, especially the status of negativity. Heidegger often identifies the primacy of the concept with a disregard for finitude, as if conceptual self-relation neutralized difference. Trisokkas cautions against this inference. In Hegel, negativity is not a decorative element but the engine of determination; it is through negation that identity avoids empty self-sameness. To say that the concept sublates time is not to say that time vanishes but that its role is comprehended within a more complex determination. If this appears to Heidegger as a refusal of temporality’s primacy, that is because for Heidegger primacy belongs to the finite horizon of existence, which cannot be converted without remainder into logical structure. Trisokkas does not attempt to decide the question; he lets it register as a principled incompatibility. The value of this procedure is that it avoids assimilating Hegel to Heideggerian categories while still taking Heidegger’s criticisms seriously.
In the later chapters, the implications for interpretation are drawn with restraint. A reading that takes Hegel to be a philosopher of time in the sense required by existential analytics will be dissatisfied, since the concept is not temporal in that way. A reading that takes Heidegger to be a philosopher of the concept in the sense required by Hegelian logic will be equally dissatisfied, since temporality is not a species of universality. If one insists on reconciliation, one will force both into a shared vocabulary that neither can accept without modification. Trisokkas shows that attempts to mediate the two often depend on softening each thinker’s commitment, and that such softening introduces distortions. The alternative he models is an interpretive discipline that keeps the terms distinct and tracks how disagreements appear once each framework is granted its own coherence.
One recurring thread is how both thinkers take history seriously while assigning it different functions. For Heidegger, history names the changing clearing in which being is disclosed; in the early work, this is tied to Dasein’s temporality and its finite horizons. For Hegel, history names the self-development of spirit; this development is not blind but intelligible under categories immanent to it. The difference does not concern whether history matters but how it is related to intelligibility. If history is constitutive of meaning, as for Heidegger, then historical ruptures can alter the terms by which being is understood. If history is intelligible through the concept, as for Hegel, then historical events manifest determinations whose logic can be recovered. Neither reduces history to mere chronology; neither grants history an unstructured primacy. The divergence lies in where they place the burden of explanation.
Trisokkas’s treatment avoids framing the debate as a matter of temperament. It is not that Heidegger prefers finitude and Hegel prefers totality; it is that each arrives at his position through the requirements he takes philosophy to have. Heidegger construes philosophy as the clarification of the meaning of being from out of the conditions of existence; this requires that temporality be foundational. Hegel construes philosophy as the explication of the self-mediation of thought and being; this requires that the concept be foundational. From these starting points, conclusions about time follow. The book’s descriptive strength lies in letting those starting points stand and tracking their consequences without sliding into rhetoric.
Readers interested in the place of science will find a measured analysis rather than a verdict. The claim that measured time is derivative does not entail skepticism toward the natural sciences; it simply locates their intelligibility within a structure they do not themselves articulate. In Hegel, the situation is complementary: the sciences are not denied but situated within a system in which their concepts receive their place from a logic that is not empirical. In both cases, what is at issue is not whether science works but what makes its work intelligible. The book resists the temptation to transform this into a cultural complaint; it confines itself to conceptual relations as the texts present them.
The extended discussion of Being and Time §§78–83 is notable for its clarity about how authenticity and temporality are related without moralizing. Anticipatory resoluteness is not an ethical imperative; it is a structural possibility that discloses how the future functions as the primary ecstasis. Past and present receive their sense from this orientation. The analysis of falling is treated with similar restraint: it marks a mode of being-in-the-world, not a failure to be overcome by exhortation. These points matter for the subsequent evaluation of Hegel, because they indicate what is non-negotiable in Heidegger’s grounding move. If temporality structures understanding in this way, then conceptual primacy will appear as a displacement. Trisokkas presents the textual steps that make this inference possible.
When the focus turns again to Hegel, the account of the Philosophy of Nature and the Encyclopaedia Logic is used to show how time functions as negativity and how it is integrated into becoming and spirit. Time is not only succession but the structural instability that moves determination beyond immediate presence. Yet this instability is not an ultimate; it is a moment that is grasped within the concept’s self-relation. The book avoids the easier formulation that Hegel “denies” time. Instead, it tracks how time is granted reality and then placed within a hierarchy of determinations whose topmost level is not temporal. This is sufficient, from a Heideggerian perspective, to justify the claim that Hegel does not ground ontology in temporality. From a Hegelian perspective, it is sufficient to justify the claim that Heidegger leaves intelligibility underdetermined. Trisokkas does not declare either position victorious; he shows why each is resistant to the other.
The final stretches of the study consider how contemporary readings have moved between these poles. Interpretations that align Hegel with a robust historicism tend to downplay the logic of the concept; interpretations that align Heidegger with a post-metaphysical critique tend to overextend the diagnosis of derivation. In both cases, there is a risk of compressing the distance between frameworks in order to achieve a synthesis. Trisokkas recommends a more modest procedure: acknowledge that the frameworks are not readily commensurable and then examine how each construes the other. Doing so produces a picture in which disagreement is articulated and understandable rather than merely asserted.
What remains is a view of the stakes that is neither celebratory nor dismissive. If one takes temporality to be foundational, philosophy will attend to the limits that define understanding and the horizons that shape disclosure. If one takes the concept to be foundational, philosophy will attend to how universality organizes determination and how mediation yields knowledge. In each case, there are costs: the first places intelligibility within finitude and risks leaving necessity unclear; the second places intelligibility within universality and risks minimizing the claims of finitude. The book does not treat these as defects to be corrected but as constitutive features of the positions. A description that makes this visible has already achieved something important.
The prose that carries the argument is unadorned, with an emphasis on the sequence of claims rather than on polemical effect. The result is a work that encourages rereading rather than rapid agreement. It will be most useful to readers willing to follow how terminological decisions—about temporality, about the concept, about negativity—affect what counts as an explanation. In this respect, Hegel and Heidegger on Time accomplishes what it sets out to do: it presents the dispute about time as an index of deeper commitments and allows those commitments to be weighed on their own terms.
In the end, the question the book leaves open is the same question it clarifies: whether being can be thought without making temporality basic, and whether temporality can be fundamental without an account of the universality that lets determinations be known as such. The text does not attempt to close this question with a synthesis; it also does not disperse it into mere relativism. It shows how each position answers from within its own structure and how those answers resist assimilation. The reader is left with a clearer sense of what must be decided to prefer one to the other, and with a map of the arguments by which that preference might be justified.
Although the work focuses on a specific segment of Heidegger’s development and on standard points of entry into Hegel’s system, its organization makes room for gradual shifts and for interpretive adjustments. The early Heidegger’s formulations of temporality and the later reflections on history are not collapsed into a simple identity; Hegel’s use of time in nature and its uptake in spirit are not presented as a single gesture. This granularity has the advantage of preventing the dispute from being staged at too great a distance. It is one thing to oppose temporality and concept in the abstract; it is another to watch how particular moves in the texts yield conclusions that are later summarized as system-level theses. Trisokkas’s book remains close to those moves.
For readers who approach the topic with commitments already formed, the study has a further use. It shows where familiar objections attach and how they might be reformulated. If one holds that any account of intelligibility must allow for universality that is not reducible to finite horizons, Hegel’s side will appear inevitable. If one holds that any account of intelligibility must be indexed to existence as lived, Heidegger’s side will appear necessary. The confrontation is thus not a matter of preference but of what one counts as a satisfactory explanation. The book helps make that visible by refusing to translate either discourse into the other’s idiom too quickly.
If there is a through-line to the entire project, it is the limit placed on conflation. The temptation to read Hegel as a philosopher of time in a sense compatible with existential analytics is resisted; the temptation to read Heidegger as a philosopher of concept in a sense compatible with absolute idealism is resisted. The consequence of these refusals is not a standstill but a clearer view of the alternatives. The description that results is less accommodating but more precise. It does not promise reconciliation; it offers articulation.
The matter of method is treated with the same restraint. Trisokkas does not claim to represent a neutral standpoint outside both systems. He proceeds textually and argumentatively, indicating where Heidegger’s reconstructions of Hegel are focused, where they are partial, and where they are supported by Hegel’s own formulations. He also indicates where Heidegger’s criteria for judgment would not be accepted by a Hegelian and why. The effect is cumulative: as chapters build, the sense grows that one is dealing with two coherent structures whose divergence persists even under careful scrutiny. This sense is the book’s principal achievement.
In this light, the book’s relevance does not depend on topical analogies. It is not necessary to draw lines from serial clock-time to contemporary technologies of synchronization in order to see the argument’s bearing. What matters is the status granted to time in the explanation of meaning. If time is basic, then the horizon of finitude will set the conditions for what counts as knowledge, action, and worldhood. If the concept is basic, then the activity of mediation will set those conditions, with time entering as the field within which determinations appear and are grasped. The decision between these alternatives is not likely to be settled by single arguments; it is likely to turn on which set of requirements one finds indispensable. The book provides the materials for that assessment.
That Hegel and Heidegger on Time can be read profitably from either side follows from its composure. The text aligns neither with the impulse to historicize Hegel unreservedly nor with the impulse to domesticate Heidegger within a logic that erases finitude. It shows how each thinker constructs the problem he requires in order to do the work he takes philosophy to do. In doing so, it presents the reader with a task: to decide what kind of ground one needs for ontology and why. The book does not distribute praise or blame; it distributes responsibilities for argument. That is, in the end, a measured and useful contribution.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment