Physiognomy and Phrenology

c. Observation of the relation of self-consciousness to its immediate actuality. Physiognomy and Phrenology. (§309-346)

I'll admit right out that a little part of me died of boredom each time I realized there were another 10 pages about dents in a person's skull during this section so...I may not have caught it all. But here's what I imagine Hegel might have been saying underneath the incredibly long analysis of a forgotten "science":

Hegel rejects "sciences" like palm-reading, etc. just as we would, but he does not reject them for the same reason. We would reject these faux-sciences because they are inaccurate (they do not predict the personality, the future, etc.). We do not believe the lines in the palm to be in any way related to the personality. But Hegel rejects them after defending their ability to be somewhat predictive, after showing how he believes lines in the hand can demonstrate something about the inner self. The reason he rejects these "sciences," it seems to me, is that he thinks his philosophy can do better in predicting or determining truths about the inner world. And he should be claiming this, given that he is saying that we can know about the inner world but is aware of the apparent disconnect of the sciences and the inner world. Though we might scoff now at Hegel giving genuine consideration to things like skull dents and palm lines, I think he would make the same argument for rejecting the more advanced predictive sciences we have today. To disagree with him on this point, then, we must be prepared to give an argument as to why science has better access to the inner world than does philosophy. Though I am not a fan of this section, I can't say I am prepared to offer this profession-defeating argument!