This reply addresses a critique that Professor Carlson made (78 TEXAS L. REV. 1377) to a note that McCracken wrote (77 TEXAS L. REV. 719) applying Hegel’s philosophy to contract law.  McCracken points out that the difference between his position and Carlson’s turns on their disagreement about what Hegel’s philosophy itself, rather than its application to contract law, means.  While Carlson views Hegel as an expositor of a deductive process of subject formation, McCracken views him as a fundamentally historical and political thinker.  Thus, this Reply concludes, Carlson’s critique of McCracken’s note turns on a misunderstanding or disagreement regarding the fundamental nature of Hegel’s thought rather than a disagreement about its implications for the law of contract.