Hegel on Kant:
On a Hegelian view, the dilemma at the heart of the Kantian project takes the following form: how can I be subject to a law of which I am the author, given that I can only be legitimately subject to such a law because of the governing principle of autonomy. Hegel shows how this Kantian dilemma requires an intersubjective solution, namely that it is necessary to show, firstly that reason is social, and secondly, that the sociality of reason unfolds historically and cannot be reduced to the formal decision procedure of the Kantian categorical imperative or the solitary activity of the Fichtean ego.
Tada: The conservative Kantian in response to the ethical demand, in order to respond sees the ethical response as reflection of his moral autonomy and rationality, in other words, it doesn’t split her into two, doesn’t cause him any psychic imbalance, doesn’t really peturb him or her in the least, because, the ethical response is a moral categorical imperative, it is a reflection of the subject’s own inner reason.
Critichley wants to argue that things are not so ‘neat and tidy’.
It is this moment of incomprehensibility in ethics that interests me, where the subject is faced with a demand that does not correspond to its autonomy: in this situation, I am not the equal of the demand that is placed on me. … ethics is obliged to acknowledge a moment of rebellious heteronomy that troubles the sovereignty of autonomy (37).