$brcviationr arc ulcd for rcfaEac6 toby Hcgcl aDd K&t. Fa full dctsib of r,orkr

ad nctiodr of ciirti@, i.c dlc bibliotnphy .lof th. volurlc.

by H.e.l

'Aphoritm! AoD Hcg.l's Wdt€book'1\. D.rlin PraM.@loA/fii. C.itical JMI of Phildtop^t,'llr'!d!c1i6'lOn fic E!!cnc. of Philosophicll Critici$n G€n-c!.lly, .nd ll5 Rcl.liorihip to ih. Pr!!.n! 5!!0! ofPtilo.dry'n. Dnave t h.a.n ncht 's and Sch.Iti,t s

$at n of PhtlotopttIht l't Logte: Pa't On of th. Ercyclqcdia oftl|t Phtlolqtktt g.*t'

E t l't Phlrlopht of No.it't] Pan Tn of ttE rlc@dta of thc Phttatotttcol scL1rc.'

DIrF

-o(

IT

0,tIT

oI

-o

ES

ETWFKHLILHPILPWH

Het l s PhlkBopht o[ Mird- Pad n.e of th. E.cy.top.dta oI.iePhllotophical SaietcaEa t theological Vrungt

Int adt tion n ie Lc.turs o't the Ht ory of phtk top^,t2.tunt on thc Phtldoplty of Vo d Hittoa; Ir.rdutio,t: R8on

fl f- Je,@t st'k6en|t4e t: DB syst ^.tet

sFntanm phit8ophietS ll. Je"e, Srst6arh44e It. Lost| Mctt physik NaniphirFopiiets lll J.noet Systenntwtde r: Natwdtitdophie und phituoriie des

LA HeA.l\ l6theti.t: Lecttet on Fire ArlLHP kcnlt4 on the History ofphi!6oph,LPR L.ctu.d on the phitNophy ofRetigionNA 'Notiz€n ud Aphonsn.n 1618 l8jl'NL Naturol Law: The Scientfic Wo!, o! D.anna Naturc! Iae, lts

PL.e in MoruI Philotuphr, and lt Retation to the positiye

The Philsoph! of flisto,yElenenb of the Philosophy oI RistttPheronenoloal ofs nl

RMo, in flittory: 1 Getmt lano.lktion to the phit*oph! of

'Tt. Relaiionship of Scepticisn ro philosophy.'Ststen of Ethicat Li.le ( t E02/3) an t ,Fitst phiosoph! oI Spitu(Pa t oftte Srsteh ofspeut4tiw phik\ophr tt;Bu)

Workr by K.nt

CP.R The Ctittqte of procti.ol Re6o,CPR Th. Ctilique oI pure ReasonG|'dM Grorntuo* olthe MetaphlsiT of MoralRP lrhat Ral Prcgreu H6 Metaphtsi' Mad.Iz Gernany Sir.e the

n e ofLekniz ond tyotfr

PHPRPS

RH

RSPSEL

SL

ia. I nmf

&$%iffiffii,iIft,t i j t 'ry

,iii,ili;

lho PhcnomcnologyIn contcxt(Pheno,lFenology,Introdu<tioh)

Preface and

and hlr tlm65

laid of Hcgcl (1770-l8ll) rhat h€ tivedlifc !i an €vcntful time. Cerr,ainly his

tu Elativ€ly humdrun cornp|fcd to thal ofor Marx, fo! cxample. How€ver, its un-clr| b€ crsgge.ared: h€ did, after sll. havc

son at a young ag€i know many of thcin&llc.tual figurcs of his p€riod, includingSch€lling, and Hitlderlin: and hrve a car€€r

.ontr&sting lows and hi8hs. from a tong pcnod ofmonymity up until his lare forrics. to national

trowing intcmarional renown by the tim€ of his16! thsn two decades lat€r. lt may be lhat Hcget's

L|! 8.nsrl,cd finle int€rlst bccau!€ ihe characle.livcd it has been s€€n as rarhcr unprcposs€ssing:

lhc rmn is commonly view€d (even by some olitcts) !s doggc4 conformisr, bombastic, andHow€ver, once n8rin this asscasmcnr mosl bc

with cautior, .3 hc slso clcarly had his vinucs.

J,r l r i r ' i

loyrlty, intellectual inrcgrity, foniiude in thc

i. I I 'E PXENOMENOLOGY IN COIITEXJ

face ofadversily. an awkward charm. and a capacity forjoy, hurnourand dcep emotion, hiddcn behind lhc ralher forbidding exterior thallooms out al us liom rhc ponrails we halc ofhim. Thus, while clea.lypron€ kl irritalc. otlind. lnd p@le lhos{ wnh whom he came intoconlacl. hc was !l$ capable ofinspinng devolion and rcvcrcnce. andabrd'n8 alrrd!'n llrr lilc and charactcr arc cenainly more complexrnd rnrcrcsrinS rhxn rs oilen assumcd. (For a thorough sludy, eeI'inknrd 2(XX)a.)

Nonclhcl.ss. it is p.obably ri8ht thar priority in consid€ringIlcgcls sork should bc siven kr lhe rimcs in which he lived. rath€rthnn trJ his hfc irnd char.|drr: for his $ork was more obvmusly shap€dby lhri than by bogrnphicnl circumstlnccs or rhc naturc ofhis p.Bon,rlilv. l)cspilc lhf apparcnl abslractncs\ ofmuch ofhis wriling. llcgclwas dccply cn8!8cd with the poliric l nd h isiorical events around him.k, tlhrch hc sou8hr to rcspond in phibsophical tcrmr. Thrs is themcunins of his flmous imase ofrhc o$l of Miherya: thc sacred birdol Mrnena (or Alhcna). the soddcss of wisdom. flies ar dusk, rner thehappcnif,Ss ol thc day. lbr only thcn crn ph'losophy refl.cr on wharhas occuFed. and,ullil its role a! lhc rrorai, ofthe world (PRPref!cc. p. 2l).

Now. whilc it mly bc misleading ro emphasi/e thc ordinannessol licgel s lifc, il is not mislcadinS lo emphlsize the extruordinarin€ssol his limes: lhesc werc indeed rcma*able. on several lc!cls. fi6r. arrhc hrsroncll and F)lnrcal level. IIeBellnd olhcr rhinlcN ol his 8ener,rrrinr \rtncsscd rhc ljrcDch Reloluti(tn. the bldrly lncrmath of lhcItr,tr. rhc ri{ an.l lirll of Napoleon. and rhe July Rcvolutron ol l8l0.$hr l \ r l r r rn8 rhnuSh thc dcmisc ol rhu l lo ly Roman hnrprrc and thcrf t rsdr/r t ,o l , l t , l r t rer l rnd socir l l i lc in nran) Gcnr n {rates. aslh( t r r le ol l lbcl l l r . i t r , l ] ebbcd rnd l l ( )scd r t round drcnr Ihcc!en(n' I r rnr . $.r or nnn,.uLr rniponance t( ' n l l ( icman intc l lc . tuak ollhN I](nod I tcn rs r sndcnl. l{egcl lim)cd prn ota clandcslrnc politler l ( luh lo dh.u$ lh. aolulron ol l?8e(Br l ingnsck,th.stonthl thc. toncd othca In thnrrng r " I rc. o l l ;bcny to mark the c\ 'ent) .wh'lc hc chrnre(l rhll he llwxys l(nk a rorst th.oughout his lif-e l(r.L l .br ! r . thc l i l l inS ot rhr Blst i l lc on 14 July ( in 1820, lcss lhan oneycrr rli.r rh. pasin! ol lhc rcprcssirc Karlsbad Dec.ees. hc st..iledhis comprn! s b\ htrvrn! them the tx'st chnmpagne $ th.t thcy could

2

I } t ' PHENOMENOLOCf I I I COXIEXT

.Utqras€). lt is lherclbre no suQrisc that Hegel gavc thc Revolution

hy.Sccond, He8el lived in a penod of philosophical as well asicll ad poliricalupheaval. wherc rt *emed rhar ncw andexciriDgbrl|lre\ for thoughl eer€ openrnS up, and *h€re comp€trn8

lions of lhese possibilnies werc cmer8in8. Hegcl was a majorin the movemenr of Gcrman ld.alism. which runs roughly

-!|

€ publicarion of th€ lirst edition of Immatruel Kanfs (iiliqld(f fue Ae*"n ir, l7l3l. to the rclrps. ol Heselianism in thc 1840s.lbvsncnt that somc sce as nlalrng olassrcal Grcck philoephy foralairduy and si8nili.rDcc. (;eman ldcalrsm wa5 inru8urlrcd bybt'r'cnr'cul philosophy , with its lucmpr ro sel meraphysrcs on thelu! palh of ! sciencc (CPR: Bxviii). rnd to balance rhe competins

Fp.rtives of dctrrminism in Daturul scicnce and lrccdom inFlrly. Howevcr. Kanr's succrssors came ro fccl that his actual

ll.vcncnt was to leavc phjlosophy rulnerablc to sceprrcism, whilejht ro ovcrcomc rhis centat durlisn bct*een liccilom lnd derer-3rm. moralily a d lhe scientrii. prctLrrc. rhe aur(rnomous subjecl

-

lhc nalurul sclll They thcrefo.c nuShl to 8o bclord K nr'. inlhnS lo lind another philosophical syst.nr rhrr w(Nltl rehic!c wharI ld s!'r out to do. and on a comtatuble scrlc. .n.onrpassrns thcItnl s'cnces. rhc ltns. aDd hirror!. $ $cll !5 cp'sr.nrololry. meta

lFcs. erh'cs. Ixllrtierl philosphr. nnd ph'kJ$d) ol rl'lrB|(,n. (Scc

L.nls 2(XX), li)r x hclplirl o\cn rf* or (jcnDr. ldcllirm a\ n move-xt l

lhrrd. l icscl l i !cd i a rcrnrrkrhle exl lural pcr ior l . s i tur tcd at al|.dol rrosrn,lds h.tw.c!r thc Lnlighr.nnrcnr lnd Rdnrnti.rin. lhus.I U. oN hrDd hc w.rs lirllr asrr. of rhe range of nc$ klcrs lhcll[htcnmcnt hnd broushr ro rhe a',crccs. rx)lrical lli. crhtcs lnd

aion. as rcll rs rhc re.crion ro thosc idcas by a lancly ol cnticalh.r (h thc olhcr hrnd. bc wrs !ln, c\poscd 1o thc nl)rc recenlaFk'pmcnls .rsiocirtcd wilh Ronrnrrcrsnr. which ollcrcd .r distinc-ll. 4n.orch to rhc rssues raised by thc drblle bctwccn rhc linlishren,

-l

md rts crilr(s. with its own or8anrcrsr conccptron ol nlrurc,

-tqxr!c

pr.turc ol hrstory, and lirilh rn rhe F)*cr of !n. lleg.l may

lll

f H. PHENOMENOLOGY I I I CONITXT

bc s.cn .rs takinS up m.rny of rhe concems raised by rhc Romanlicssuch as S.h'ller. Novals. and olhers, bur in a way lhar souAhr lo givca ncs titrlrrron to rhe basic ideas of rhe Entighrcrment (such as'rclsotr. and progrcss ) ralhcr rhan st(jng thcm asidc. In Hegel.swort, theretorc. we find lhc conflucnce of rhe two major inteltcdualcurrcnts ol his cra.

Wirh thesc cvenrs ffid issu€s in rhe backgrcun,t. jl is hardtysurpnsrn!! rhai llcScl s phrkrJophy has a dcpth and comptexiry nolollcD \ccn in catmcr rincs. *hcn rhe saters of inrcltccruat and potrrrcr l h, l run nro.c str l l . t t rs ar rhis pornt in hrstory rhar many of thcparrdr8nr\ of modcm rhilrlirg \rrr. lo bc fonncd: ,nd ltcSet was r(,t rcS'n hrs osn coninbulknr kJ shrpinS thcm wnh rhc w. i i ing of lhcl'htNrrrruh)Kl

The pface ot the phenomenology in Hegel's lite and workslh( pobliealion oi th. /,rotnn.nohtK in |t07 narks rhc beainningol llescl-s marure phik)sophy: elcry1hin8 wnucn aDd pubtishedbLlirrc thcn is classified irmotrg his earty or prcpan,iory wnrings. Th./',I,1zd,kr!)/ogl rs l.kcn k, nurt a walcKhed in licSel,s inrctleclulldcllk)pmcnt lbr thrce rL..rson\.

|irst, il was throuSh lhrs *ork thal lteset srrncd lo e,ner8e as Idrs l inct ivc l igure wirhin thc nruvcment ot post_KlDrirn Ocmanklc lisnr. !s hc began k) scr hrnrscti apan lron othrr phito\ophcb('l rhr Friod. In his prhl|crrrotr\ pnor to rhc t,r.rd,ur)rr(r_ I{c8el\r$rc(l contcnl to li)tk,$ thc tcnd of hjs nxrrc prccGious t.ncn.l,ur l n 'cnnr I $ J Set jc l t r t rE ( t775 t15{r l . !c l . \ a in{ jarrcn\r th S. l 'e l l r t rF bt l rn;r rhc,r \ tudcnr dn\s. $tren both nrrcndc. i rhcl l , ' le\ l in l Scnlnrr \ r r lhc L or\crs1t \ o l t . i jbtrecn t t r rgclher wi lhrr(( ln.h l l , tk lcr l rn l1 l7 lJ l l ( .1.r) . who $dutd nueh txrcr conrc b brr .gnr(hr l rs one ol ( icanr ly \ ! re i est pocts. rnr t *h() i tso inf lucncedl l r8. l , I | rhrs rn, \ l r Wh'te t t .8ct \ not id ! rnxcs crnrcd hrm rhc nicknrtr ' r ' rhc () ld I lxn t i r I r hr \ ( t rsnnrr .s r t t i ihrnS!.D. und $hr le hc$i\ \ktr\ r{, cnrhh\h hA repuratknr, Schrtting \ risc wrs nrcleoric: hrss\ \kr t t ) t hnr\ tn l tntul ht?re, ( l8(X)) $as q!rekty scn ns mol inghcr',nrd tI. posl (nr,.rl thrl()rophy of J Ci tichtc ( I 76: I nl,lt. in rhcs.nr. radr.r t nrxnncr rhrr I t (hr . h in lsct fhad l r icd k) ht ic Krnr,s er i l ical

' |ua PHENOMaNOLOGY rrV (Or{rErr

aophy funher forward. tloth Schelling and llcgcl had shared the

ld fit. of le{vrn8 Tiibing€n to berome privatc turos in wslthy

lr|lic. (Hegel in l79l and SchcllinS in 1795)r bur whil( Schellin8

I.ppointed a professor at the LJniversity ofJcn! in 1798 at ih€ age

t2!, and was wclf known as rhe author of the S^tln .'l Ttunsen-

lrr rd.arru !s wellas (nher works. Hegel rrmained a private tutor

I 1601, when a legacy from his falher al lasl enablcd him to follow

blling ro r"nu, at thc la[cas inviraiion. Therc hc qurlified as a

lrEtr'o:dr, (unsatancd univcNity tcacher) with a thesis on naturalpo.ophy. a subtccr clos. tu srhclhns s conccmi: alier obt rnrn8 hr\

bcc to teach.lhe r$o hr8Jn runnrnB (uur(s h,Etlher Helel\ lirsl

Firhcd work undcr his own nrmc appearcd lhll ycar. under the

lri.fdy b'rl dcscripfivc tirle \tt Th. Dtllt.tut B(tne.n ti.ht. s dnd

)Hlt"K\ Srst.n o/ I'hil,)v?rf.r In Itl02 ljeScljoincd Schcllins in

-fin8

a philosophrcaf pLrrclii^|. the ( tnkal Jou tlol Philok4,ht.

i rhich he conrnbutcd his sceond mal$ publicarion. Failh and

bwlcdge . as well as wririnS rhc lonS inrroductron lo the lir$ rssue.

lllcd Thc lsscncc ol Phrlosophtcal (irrcrsm (icncrully. and rts

hrionship to lhc Prcscnt St.uc ol Ph,losofhr' In I'anicular'. In these

-yi.

Hegel sccmcd 10 rdcntrfy hunsclf as a lnll,Ncr of Schcllins.

ld clcarly pul lbrwurd h;s liicnd s posiridr rs rhc hcsr hopc lbr posl-

Il|ti{n philosophy. (nhcr tublierrions ol rhis pcrio(l thrl rppcared in

J ar i txalJoi tkdl Thc Relr t ionshin ol seeprrcr \ rn ( , Ph, losophy'

l l l02) and on rhc Scicnr i l ic $r ! o l l )cxl ! s \ ! r r l r N.rrural Law'(1102 ltl0lt arc lcss c\phcrtlt Scl'cllngrrn In \!btc.t mrtlcr and

irumenr. but rhcr- rrc nor prnr(L,larl! dr\tmctr\c t!l.n on thc'r o!n.

L|rlhns lelr Jena in 18o.1, gonr8 lir\r r() lhc Iinr\chrl,y ol w0rzburg.

..d rhcn on ro l\tunrch rn lN06: *ilh S.hcllin8 s (lctaaurc. llcgcll.tm kr bc n]ore openl] .ritie!l ol hrs liicnd s posit()n. und to achrc!ca 3rcsrcr distancc Ironr ir (lor dclails, scc Lr!kiles 1975: .{2-l -1ti).llowcver, llegcl s rnthcr r esr repulalion al lhis sl gc mclnt hc5od it hrrdcr lhrn Sch.llin! l,r trtNc on ltonr Jenr. rnd hc wls cv.n-

Illy lbrucd k) lertc rrcirdcnrrx rltolether. b.conrnS r newsprpcr

dlor ro Bamberg In March llllr? In thc sanrc ycar. hc nublished lhc

l*aonLnohs. *hich hc hoFd rould rcvivc hrs acrdcmrc carecr.It carablishin8 hiN rs , thirkcr nr his osn nshr. (As Prnkard 2(XX)ala0.l notcs. howclcr. ir kx,l ro|lr!'lrme bclbre rhc originllity oflhc

IAE PI]ENOMENOLOGY IN CONTIXT

:.1111,1,.,"j:".:1. " crearry recosnid. as .rcn yea6 arier [ns]pu]'iar'on. Jt tctetl"a srr rryrng ro convrnce much ofrhe tireranpunh( tnJr hh phito\ophy was an advance on Sche ,"g

" *a *i1",,

of ir' Scc ,bd.: 25r, {5 for an accounr or rrowil./,r,?,,,(?,/.,An. was tiNl reccived. )

r._ tt tha phehnqdtr&l represents a watcNhcd nottusr becausen(.k,..m. (flri{t d,rr.rncc hcrwcen Heget and Sche ing can cteart\Ir'.rocnlrtrd,ti{ th,. tihr fim(. In ltep(,I : pubt,shed wnringr: n is atr,

f::_'11".",1. In shi(h l|(r(l h(san dr rar rascd l7r ro lay our hr.

i):.:::1":ll" ll^'1* 'i' rh( Pr'l$rems 'ha' hJd con."'".i r',. p..u(($vh.,n, j \ , to Jd., t r Jn outt ,k rhat N recognr/ahty. egetranIhus. fhc. Frslrion ltcSet purs foMard i" n" in*,,^",,,t,,o1 * ,,t in( l ! , , t r \u\ r \ rhc,rL hc $rI !o nn to dl fcnJ ,n rhc remdrnd. l

; l l ., l l :.f1,11,:: ry:1,*',",. $hrrc,n hh prL.pri l,ar..ar,1,,1r wrrrrng.I r \ ( rcJ\ $,rr( \ l r In a strr ! o i ur Iherc rs rhe.cr i r . "

" . . ""1*ut , r .d!8ro( ol inte ecrual conlinuily herwcen rnrs work and lhose rhlr

l : ' l :" , j ' : , 'n: t : l :^",, / / . , ,r, , . shrch app€arcd ,n rhrer pans. ,nrnr: . . r . r r . and tU16 respccrr tet) . wnnen at ter cf( . t hai i more,,

11.T._:j"'b".s '. b.*.. hcadmrner of a symnas,un n Nurcmbe.s

rn lnolii s.rond. fie t,,rrhr\liu ol the pTttos|ph,.( ?i .!i.k,.er. tb;nrsr cdirron of which hc puhl ishcd in t8t7 af lcr h isllfl'il'""1r "'

p.:r""- , hr university of Hcidctbcrs. lnd wh;chrc i ,mrc I lhre( \n iume qi , r t hy rh( r ,mc ofrr . rh i rd rdr l inn In t i t { r .t::.t\t ,.thc

|hth.sorh:.,,! R rrl ii tx.:t. pubti,hcd rhrc( ye.h affcl

l l l , l l i l l f".,.", '","; ""u.1",I) h,\ rR.rure\ on a6rh(',$. phrrov,ph) ol:: l l l l , l J,hr',MrhI of h,.n^. .,n.i h,n,,^ uiphrt,\.,pr,y.

"r,,.r, *..r f , 'nrr n hr. t r r ._ jLTJ wnrrn! : , , i I lqr ro txf i t rqhr(h t r {u\ mor(, ' , , . rnrrJ . r r l r ( t r ! ruus qu(\U,.ns. rnd r \ ,u( , , , f ( i ,nrcnrt{Jr} pol-

' r .s) . nor In thc pubr ishcd Jcn! wr i r inss of [ j0r to t806 (whrr ; ;cus. ' , ' \ I r rqr ' ( \ , , r , , , rhd rh,nkc. \ r r , r r I r \ {ht( ro \c . in!rh,nE morc rhan

:::..;:.jl: l:' " *,

)^ ", I r rurv d(vcrord rih,r,N,nrrrirr p*rrron, : : , , t r . t ht , : tn, , r , ,pr nt rhc rc l | o[rhc sort \ rhJr t i , o"cd . th(

: . " . : " :^ . : , : , , , , ! : , , rhs rhc in,r 'ar \ rep,n rhe rnre ccruar roune) rharnJ\ ! , r r . . | | , . [ ( t r rn rh(. Lh\(unr) or hrs (rr l ] carccr in Jcn: rndnJtr) tur1, . shcr( h( \ rn,Frtr( i ro matc an) k,nJ i , r mrrt . ro rhc er(n-

lNE PHENOMENOLO6' I I { CONIEXT

riir-l

dunph of his pcriod in B€rlin. *here .whar des Heeet rhintf? was rhe fiNr qucsrbn oflhe chatr.nng cta$.s {R prntard| 612).A lbid reason why the Pr.,on"rdldlay is considered rhc firsr

llctt marure wntrngr rs rhat it is also grtcn a \wen i ptaceliouShi, in a way that the €arlier works are not. Hesel was mosl

lboul thc need for system-building. declarin8 rhal .[a]pan

lh.ir interdependcncc and orSanic union. thc rruths ofphilosophyrilu.lcss. and musi rhen bc trcared as baseless h'porh6es. or

convicrions (El.: gl4. p. 2o). The tirsr pubtish€d version

ts| of rhe syvem. Jnd rh( lJrcr prll,rvlfrr ,,/ fr(r/ d(\etopr som(

l-crhical and lx 'hrnxl rs5u(s dertr w h In rhc rhr. i l pdn. undcr rh(

Fdr 'ObFc'rve Sp'n' . Bur IIL'B(I hrd hrun hr\ afiempt ro lnicu-

p. nSorourly .n'(ulat('d phrlo\ophr(rl .ysr(m rncr hh mo!e ro Jcnr

I l ] ) l . so thdt r l 'housh rhrr pnrecr $rr n ' , r r i ' t ! l ' /d rr rhe f ime,rnJFlnucd to d. \ ( ]ur rhr( ,urh rhc \ r f l , ,u\ .Jrrn,n , f rhc r ,d! . / , -

lhrl's sysrem as a whole. wirh irs division inro Locic. phitoeDhvl{dur!. and Phrlosophy ot sprnt todrvr.: rs rhe ed ,on ot rh;

lopedia oJ thc Phih\ophi.al &ien.es that lppeared in t8t7.lhc earlier S(.n r.1 .r/ Z.,si. is a de|ailcd claborarion of rhe lirsr

ud), Hegel ras.rlrcady thinking in . sysrcnrxrrc wr) wncn ne clrmcf aa.npose rhe Pn(rorkrdlr,fr 'lhus. whit. rhc /rrtunwdor\'||astsllrh€d emc years bcli,ru rhe l)ei? /.Zira \yic,n rFperrco. rr w!\I t l t | l wh' lc l lcF. l

"1 l $r{ l ,n! ! , r r r . r rL. tL, (* ! ' \ . rn i t \n rs rhJFd

It dE.am( {n(cm' unJ I i rn i l rn l (n| l l rdc,F ( th( ,LnJ tccrure n|J.tLlt rnd unpublishcd notcs in wh,ch ttcsctnn.tc rhc$ crrly a emprsI tort our a sarislack)ry phiklsophrcat \ynem rrc now lo b. tbundatt Jout Stjk .turiit i (Jcn. Sysl.m l)rxtls) tir)m t803 k) t8(1,1.lDa to 1805. .nd 1f i05 k) 1806: scc JS l . . lS l l lnr l JS t t l . )

Morcover. thc /,r.r.rk,,r)Ay rc!c!ls lteBct s systemaric con-lnr not Ju, t bcrru* hc $.G Jlread) thrnkrn! In thh qa)

"hr l ( In

b: hc rhu f( l t Jr rhN rrm( rhJt Jny , ! \ r (nr hc \J. r ( , romntere s. ,ut . l

-d

em. \,n of 'n'ro,jur

I !D. ., role q hr(h rhr / /l(,,,',?,,/,,s tra\I tncd Io hl l Inrrr l l l l . t lcH( l l lJnned ro nuht^h an

'nroduc;on x,

b .y.icm of around |5l) pagcs. rogcrhcr wirh a.l-ogic as thc ti6l

F of his sysrem, rn a single lolumc al lastertimc in 1806: but thislvlr ryperrcd. and inslard hc quickly complclcd lhc phcionooh,!\

IAE PI lENOMENOLOGY IN CONTEXT

as a much hug.r and indcpcndsDt work. His 6rsr lirle for ihis worlwas a 'Scrcnco of rhe [rpcricnce of Consciousness.r (which was rh.t'tle on8inllly cntisagcd Ibr rhe projected eartier. shoner ilrroduclionlo the systcnr). bur allcr rhc proof sraSe he ahercd the titl€ to thc oncwc now havc tbwcver. rhc publishcr of rhc tirlt edirion saw fil lornLlu.lc hnh xlt(r \o lhat tirsr app€arBd as .Sysrem ofsc,cnce: FialPrr|. th( Phcnr,m|lnotoSy ot Spint.. wrrh a funher trtte Insencdb.tsccn thc .,)lcface and rhc .tnrroducl;on..

which in somc copiesrcrd S.rcncc dt rhe ExF{ricncc of Consciousncss, and in o|he6 ;ead'scrclcc ot rhc l,hcnomcnok,Sy ot Spiril.. atso as | rcsutl ot.confu-sr()n on lhc prn ot rhe puhlshcr creared hy ltcgcl,s vaci atrons. Asstll rs trvrnF k, srgnat rrs phcr sirhin hrs sysrem In rls lrttc, ltegct.\'Prcli.c afnr hrShtighrcd rhc l,h.hodlroh,K\Inrnxtuctory work, as bc;ng rcqujred ifwe arc k, see ihrnSs ,n rhc wa\thrr llcsct s tltly dcvebped phihsophicat sciencc demandrj

Scicn(c on ils part requircs thar setLconseiousness shoutd h.r!.raiscd itsclf inlo rhis Acrhcr in ordcr k, t(, able to tilc andJacruajtyl ro live wirh Scicncc anil in Scicncc. (.on!cNcty. rh!,ndividu,l has rhe rishi lo demlnd rhar scicncc shoutd,jr tcasrprovrdc hin wuh thc laddrr to thjs slnndpoinr. should show hinrlhrs s landpoint wnhin himsctf . . . whcn nalurat conscn)usncsscntrusrs [sctf ltr.ighr$ay ro Sciencc. ir mrkes an ,rlcmpr.Induccd by il knoss not qh.rr. ro urfi otr iir hcad tii,. tusr thrsoncc: thc compu'si(D t() lssumc this un\ortcd postur. rnd tsoabour in ir is ! liotcncc il is !,rp!,clcd l0 do lo irs!,lt llt unpr,-lrrcd 'rn(l

sccmrnrt] $ilhout .eecssity. l..r Sci.ncc h! jn ils owr\Lll shil ir trlay, rctnrit.ly k) immldrrte rcl-_conscj(rNncss irprr\erl\ rr\ell in an in\cncd txlnur.. or. D.causc rhh \cI:

has lhc fnncrpl f of , rs rcul t cr is lcrec ;n rhceer l i rnr t rn sct l Scrcn(c ppcars l r ) r r ndl to be acruir t . \ incc$tt . , ' I ls . i ( , lsncsr cxis ls (nr i ls osn r .counl orrs idc ol .scicncc

lr ^

rhi\ eominS,ro_hc ot.S. it r! dqkh ot ot knt^h\t!r!.thrr r! dc\.rihcd in thjs /,r.r,,k*J/.,$ ot-Stiflt.

lHE PHENOMENOLOGY IN CONTEXT

rnd which came to be aniculatcd laler in th€ lr4./.)p?.io, theficrefore has a claim to be considered as viral to a

undentanding ofHegel s malure syst€matic work. in a way that

Dilvious puhlications do not.However, whihl everyonc rccognizes lhal thc Phenonenoktgl

a tuming-point in Hegel s philGophical car€€r, in tems of ils

ity, ils depth d sophislioation. and its systemalic siSnificance,

remarks by lleselhimselfhavc lcd some towam thrt wc should

Grp€ct to lil the Pr./on.r,r,$ into his 6nal philosphical oLrtlook

r€mainder (where some 80 on lo claim that thal linrl outlook

This dispulc h"s come aboul lbr sclcral rc,rsons. timr. whilc

certain deplorable elcments thal are thanklully missinS in

Plednc,o/oj$ as an earlier work. while orhers 8(} on lo disparagc

Phenonenok't\ ^r

a nislcadrnS Suidc to llcgel t ullrmale posF

rn eonsr, tutrnt I . taddci dcsigned to l lkc

ol rhc krn( l o l phr losophrcrt syst$n which

(PS. H t5)

us l()w .ds tbe srandpointllcBcl was workin8 on in

lafpl certainly srrcsscs rhe Pr.r,,k'!to&! s syslcm ric imponancc

ItE work itselfand in its la.ious ritl€s and sublitlcs. in later prcscn-

1!oo! of the syslcm he appears lo dosnplay this role (lbr examplc.

b|rtcnting of a pr(iected s-ond cdrtton of lhe /'r{? on!nok\l\' thal

It dkl not live 10 cdmplelc.lhat n qoul.l no lon8cr hc called lhc lirsl

F' of the syslcn of sciencc: cll SL: 29). ln rhc sccond phcc. thc

Ld psnof rhe t . r'/.,p.diu. rhc I'hilt)!.Pht tl sttu,..onhins.r lon!

-lioo

in which the carlier po.ls ol tht Pr.,,re!!,/,,(r (lhc lhrcc

-ptF,

on ( dr*,,-("1srtcss. S.ll:(inrsei,)usnfs\ Md Prns ol lhal otr

lrrcnt rcrppcrr rn much lhc sxDrc lilnn- su88.nrn8 pcrhaps lh.l lhc

Itrmaaol r wrrs nrw suptoscd 1,) los. its sllhrs irs u sell'conlaincd

rd indcpcndcnl work. lhird. vnne tonrmcnlrktrs hrlc bccn FzTled! l lcgel should hr lc supplrcd rhc / : , .1( / , I t ! rd r tscl l * i rh i ts own

Itrxlucn)ry rPPrfulus In \\:6 7r ol thc l,,.trn - 'l lhe I'h.iott.'.rtr'!\

tI mcilnt tt) scrvc llul rolellchind rhcsc nratiers of schollrshrp (shr.h rft hardly conclu-

av.: cl-. lohler 1998: 547 55). lhcrc rs ti dccpcr rnd more siSnilicnnl

Ircm. ntfmcly. lhll lhc haslc rn which thc I'hltto"trnlort wir

irittcn inc\l|abl! lcn.ls lo lhc qo !n unconsidcrcd rnd ungolcmcd

tFhty ttyp,licd In conlnlrons suroundrns rhc rnlc p!8c, Preflcc. irnd

ttbL ol oonrcnr s ). shrch disqualiiles rl as a selllcd shlcmenl of l lcScl s

Fi0on.Ihc \h,ry ot lhe P.r?r,n*,/,talJs composili()n in this rcsPecl

I thc slxlIol phil()\ophical lcgend. llegcl was ibrccd lo linrh thc book

J

-----.!rrrr-

fH. PHTIIOMENOLOGY I I l COI, IT€XT

[*,#.r::F jii !|;,ff.x{":l;:', trHiJ :J:ffi i;lcompkhd mdnu*-npr by tS Ocrobcr tE06rl*;:*l[:'**.:f ,g:r::ilJfr i.i1ri:n-i;r'na. ro,hc pub,ah,r m ";* ;m;;;;l".Hi,:Hli: H:lscnfr tercepr rhe prcta(c| rhe nrghr bctoi

11#1 j: ; ilffi il;':.,,xm il.,.ffi 'lT#rlij. ' (cuf tJ LIU( k ' , rn !d ot wnn. ( i rvcn the lx l

lff ;l$l ::l;;I Hl,1ffi l; ffJlXil"?*T:Tif ".:;$ur\..r uu, a(oL,n, o, |,c_l ., r;J;"-;1,:, ;ll.i:#.:*_',Ti:l:il:'#ill.: J-,lH?,Iil,'[ i,l:""J*,* needcd resorh.lr:m::'|J"':rv eno,'o h,\ irc,;; ;;';;;il;'. l,:1,H, Tff l'fiJill:il illl'"'l ;#:;f iilr ;i'"::".fi .ri'*' ""i; ;;"*1"i;it#H# Hi:'jl; ii::Yi': i:ri i'x'L'ilTs"';.:ii: ffi ""rJ*h;l lil ;ilil i:: r ".- J" ;*l;";:-*,; ;::i;: l;; :T1.TJ;.T'.,'# :lI liil:l: :Tl" ;,:?:lt"ilfi i::TI."y, bcncr r H' q 20,

11;,;*:1,1 :.iif:riilt " *rj*itl uii , \ ; ' r ln hr r ,J In,nir t l nnh rurL(t { , { t . , . r , $, \hould nnl \ ( h leni ) i l i : i " i l , l " i l ) i l : . r r ' r ' r ' ' ' 'n ' | r 'Ls " ' l ' |h, ,Jn,nu.,chJrr,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,;,,,,,1,,,...,i;;,,',"";,:,:,.:::,-.,::;,:i,:,";,,',""h.,t,,\,h,.u,h'

r,:;fil: , tr:I lr::ltil*iilll li,jil*Jli;l1ffir,""d:i;.lillj,,:I ;;):il'li T;.1fi

,,*i**, .ha'cnFe,o any

il:tTt :".1,:;tr:rt",;i;1, li ll;i**u:rfr I

rh^r rhe Phenonenologr is hr lion nawb$ (which. asLv. s€€n, HeSelhims€lfacccpr.d). I would noneihclds claim lhal

I h.as an underlying unity of purpo{€ and mcthod u/hich can b€to lighl oncc its overall approach is clsrificd. h is to b€ hop€d

IHE PHENOMENOIOGY I I I COIITTJ(T

lhis unily will b.corn€ cl.arer as we proceed lhrough the work,wc gralp how Hcgel und€rstood thc Prero,rcrdop's role as an

on toth€ system. and what he inlcnded that system as a whole

Hegel'5 system

cvcryIhing thal is supposed to b3 scicnlilic, reasn must be aw5[er.ffcction applied. To him who looks at the world lationally the

looks rationally back: the two exrst in a reciprocal relationship

oLPWH: 29lRH: ll: translatron adapted). Th€s€ commenrs, maoe rnl. cou6c of his di$usion of the philosophy of history. may srandr |n cpigmph for llesel's philosphy as a wholc. in tellrng u! much

-or|l

lhe aspimlions ofthal philo$phy, and how hc holcd those aspr-rllaons would b€ achieved.

Hegel s aim. as this comment makcs cb,rr. rs ro hclp us s thati iF world is ralional. by getting us r,) ln)k .rt rr in thc iShr wayi for,

HGB.I holds. rhc world 6.ational. rnd rh. gorl ol hrmun cnquiry isto'bring lhis rationality to consciousn.ss . th{t rs. rr) breomo w re oflhi! mlionalily. and hcnce achic!e a lully &lcquxt. eomprchension of| ! r l r ty. (c l PS: 4 5. where t legel speaks ol rh ikrsophy as'openingup lhc lasl'locked naiure ol sub\lrncc. !n(l raisinS lhis lo sell-consciousncss . . . by bringing conscn)usness dut ol-its chnos back torn order b.scd on thouahr landj rhc simplictry ofthc Notion . ( f. dlso?Rr Prcf icc. p 12. nnrurc is rdtn,d/ nrr , r r r1. , / / . and.. . ( is th isocrr.,// rcason prcsenl qithin il *hich lno$l!.d8{ musr inlcsligale and

F3p conceptually nor lhe shnpes and contin8cflcics qhich a.evi.iblc on the ,rurlhce. but narure s clemnl harmoflv. conceived.lowcvcr. as the law ofessence ,rDdren, wnhin it .) In claiminS thatlh. world is mtional in this respeci. rlcgcl mcans many things. butrnrinly he mcans that it is such that wc can lind dccp intell$tual and

?treti.^l satisfo<rion in it: rh.n is nothin8 in rcality.lJ rr., rhat is.Frllic to reason. which rs truly incompr€hcnsiblc, contadictory or

11

" llHC PIIENOMENOTOGf I I I CONIIXI

inerplicablc. and thcre is norhing in reality which makes il inherenityat odds w|lh our puryoscs and inleresls. As the wortd irsetfis mtional;n this way. oncc we can s€€ rhsr rhis is so. the world wi lherebyhave shown irsclf to us in the right way. .nd wc will have achicvcdnbsolutc knowlcdSe, which rcprcsenrs lhc highcst form ofsatisfacdon:unlrlthrt rhinr is reached. l lcscl calls our knowlcdsc.finire or.condi-ljoncd . in so far as lhis rationrl insighr has nor yer been anained_

Nde. s llc8cl ,lso nri*e\ clcnr i'r lhir cdmmcnr. wherher werrrrrn rhis sratc ot nhsolulc kno$lcdgc docs nor iusr dcpcnd on rhctrorld lnd rhc Inrr thnt i s r.lkrnal: rr rlso dlp.trds on (r. on how wc,,)l rt th. world Il qr rrc unrhlc i,, \rc( lh. sortd conectty. thcre-lbrc. rt will not rppc.rr srtisirctr,ry t{' rcirson: rhnr is. the world witl:rppcnr k, contrrn clcnrcnts thal nrc incdmprehcnsihlc, conrradicrory.nnd nhcn. in r rr\ thrt nra! lcrd us inkr dc\parr. lk)wcler. HeSetsnftic'jt r\ not rhr puruly eonr.narr\c or qurctisrrc onc. ot r$oncilingrs ro lhc wo.ld no mnficr wh r djlliculrius wc scc In it: ftther. Hcgelarms to arvc us l way of resollin8 thosc ditliculrics by {inding a new$ay ol krcking at rhings. |o show us lhc wortd,s il rntrinsrcr y iswhen thcse dilllcultics rnj remo\cd (.i thrdrmon lee:l: 1.1 I ). Thus,llc8el bclievcs rhat rhc Srcalcsl conrribution phitos|phy eln make isto help us ovcrcomc our dcspair. by p.oviding us wirh l'csh ways ofthinking about rcl|lity, th.rcbr- bringrng us back to 1 r scns. lhar rhcworld is ! ration{l place. onc in which u cln rruty t-cct .at hoole'rfor. rs hc purs it in the I'hih'!.t,ht ol Rij<h/. .l is ar home in thcwodd whcn it knows ir, and clcn mo.c s0 $hen ir has corrprehcndedtt lPR: l {2.p. 16).(( f lsoELr \ lq4Z.p. 16l . Ihcarnr ol know-lc(l8c rs k) drcn rhc objcctilc slrrld lhrt \rrnd\ opl,i\cd ro |lr of itsslmng.ncss, nd- r\ lhc pfitusc is. r() fi'rd our\cl\c\ lr h.nrL in it whichnr$ns no DrJrc lhnn t() ln 'cc thc obie(rr !c $or ld hxcl l ( ) rhc rot i r )n|o our Inn(nno'r sclll )

ln. cr to r .h ic lc rhis godl . s l l .8cl \ r \ \ . rc nrn njusr brawrkc rn(l rcllret!)n rtp|cd: rhar is. rhilixoph! Nr\t takc il rclt!{-r i !c st lDec. br- x icntr ly ing and gurrdur8 aSrrnsr rho\c l i ,nns ol (hoaghrth r ll'rd us r,) irdopr nn intclleclual or pnct r.! t ednecpl (,n ot thc $ ortdthat prcvcnrs rt lppenrinS rarional to us in lh. $rv I shoutd. when wearc ]ookinS dt it pft)plrlv. Philosophy nrusr rh(r.li)rc \cr our kr.oncctlhose outklrks wh'ch crer(c thc puzzlcs rhlr nop us l;rnn $cin8 rcaKrn

12

1\E PHENOMENOLOGY IN <OIITEX'I

in $e world. by showinS how these outlooks arise as a rcsuh of sornc

mn ofdistonion *hich i.n bc overcome, th€reby enablinglh€ puzzles

b b. rEsolv€d and thc world to look back to us in a rational wav oncc

rerin. lf philosophy does rot fulfrl this rolc rhen we mav kcome

Jn"in..i er,r'..ir'u, tr'" *"rld rs nor €tronal as \uch or rhat even if

tt is. it can neuer took tlal l'ay to u!. and so can never bc a 'home'

t crcarurcs tite ounave. Ilegel s€€s both these oplions as (lil€rallv)

counsels ofdcspair: bul bolh *ill remain opiions untilphilosophy has

ii"*" tr'" *.*" *r'r* a p€r'pecrive liom which the world is madc

fullv slisfactory to rcason Only then. Hegel argues' will wc hav€

o""r.o." *, ".,*ng"."nt

tfom thc world anil thus have achieved

Thc iqnorant nun is nol frcc bccause whal confronrs him is an

alicn-worl<j, somcrhing oursidc him and 'n

rhc offing' on which

ht .lcn(nd\. wrlhout hr\ hr\tnB ma'lc lhi' l'tcrgn $orld for

himrcitatul rh.refotr wi'h'ur bcrn8 rr home In ir hv hrm\'lfr\

in somcftinS his own. Thc impulsc ofcuriositv thc prcssure lor

knowledgc.-from lhe lowesl lclel up to lhe hiShcst rung ofphiltF

$r'hicsl i.sighl lrises onlv fron lhc struSSlc l() camcl rhrs

sirultrcn ol-un liccdom .rnd to nr'kc lhc world onc s osn In onc \

idcas and rhouahl . (LA: I . p 98)

Wc hrvc seen. thcrcforc. lhrt llcScl trkcs rl thut sc arc rcspon-

siblc tbr creirlinS thc krnd ol inlclleclual xnd so''il cnlironmenls thal

lcad us to llnd thc workl Inlcllccluallv irnd \ocidlly alien !s lhe world

iinlri' "na

*oura * "

nont k) us But srlcn rhis ho$ docs llesel

irrlnl It"*" ^ri.nuring

*'n.eltrons conrc rboLrr'l llcscl claims rhdl such

mislakcn conceplions aritc hccrLrsc wc nre inelincd n) $inl tn a tnc-

sided or oppositional wav: we btl'clc lhal somclhtng is ?"/t'l hnrlc

or inlinirc. onc ,t maf,v. lrcc '/

ntccssitated htrnan o' divinc'

nutonomous d/ pad ol-a communrtv. und so on' 1he diflicuhv is llegul

a.eue". rhal ;f*c llkc rt'lngs in rhis way. lhcn 'cason

will frnd tt hard

io"tnur" ."'s. or rr'ing'. ^

ir will thetr look ar rcal'tv in a wav that

"1"r..r. r-.,r'..n.pr"x inreuelalion oflhes' rnomenls whcn in

fsct to scc ils€lfin thc world rea$n musr Srasp ftaltherc rsao gcnuinc

dichoto y hcrc' Thus. to lake one ctamPtc' bv assuming thal lo act

l3

'fIHE PHENOMTNOLOCY IN CONIEX,

fr.cly rs lo ncr In I way rhat is nor consrr.iftd or fxcd in any way.trl. re rJ!\'d $irh rh( apn rcnr abrurdrt) ot lakrnS onty arbrnarlcnor(c\ J: Jul.'n.rD'u\ a(tioh. ds rs ont) rhcn rhar we could b€ sidr,' h( (rrn8 qrrh!'irr yrhrnB {prc,tica y d(rLrrn,n,n8 ou bchavrour.r ,ut r t $c th(n tJ lc Jutdnumoui lct lons ro hc, , t thrs k ind, r r rs thenh.ril ft, r(.( rr.cddn r\ bcrng lunr(utart) J{\rrrbte o. srgnrficaDt (cfI I \ {155 t . PS t | l r 22r Ar thr \ pornl . qc may $cl t feet bautkedF' . , nu/ / rc \ ' . t ( .Cp thdr t rc n, , tonFcr tn, ,s qh(r( ro rum to f ind rh(s.ursl:rct|()n rcrn crrvcs: bur tbr ltcgcl. rr rs just hcrc lhal .reasonnu\t rB asxrc and rcncc0on apptrcd. lhlt rs, s. Drusr ask whelherthcrc rs sonrcrhrnS Intr,nsrcnly pioblfmrne lbout our sbnrnS point.an.t whcltrcr rhh hrs.rcrrrd our \uhscqu.nr (trt.ticufric,.

"^mcfy, orr.

assun)plkD lhrr ticcdom ri)lot\.s het ot coonrrinti for ;I thet l ' | lsrr ! rn in8 l i rcbr rs somclhing wc cxn , iDrfnrnt izc, .

lhcn i i appcarsthat.on\rrritrt and liccdonr ean bc nrrdc coutaribtc rnd shoutd norbc oplr)scd. llegcl rSucs rhdr our in rr I dichol,mry rnust rherefore bebn,rcn down if the puzzte is b bc rcn,tved, .lt.lrom

which wc maylcam whar a mislakc it is ro rcS.rd ficcdom atul ncccssrry as murua yerclusivc ( t j l j gt58Z. p. :2{}) : onty rhen, I tc8ct uggcsrs. wi wecone bacl lo sceing the world !s rar(nrat onec rSain {

ln his desirc ro rind somc stnsc of ,nre edult and *,(iarharmony by overcom,nS the di!rsions rnd drchot0m,es rhnt secmed romi l ( thr ' rmpN\jhtc. l tcgct sJ, ( t ( . r ,h r( !n, indrn! f t , rhe \Ln*.urdr 'hrrrron shaRd h' mrn) , , t hF conrrmF,rJ ie\ h,rh wrrhrn hrJrn]nrcd'are crrcle (Nch as Sche ins xnd tt6ldcrlin) anil beyond. r.hisJFl , r , r r ron.\J. ietr Jr nrdn) t . \ r t , . J: rpIrJr(J rhJr rh( lnt , thh.n_nr.r ' t hJ( l \h.r t (n old (rnJrnt l ( \ hur h t put norhnU .uh,t , rntr , r l In thrrt i i r ( In '^ . r (J.un s,F r fen J, t (JJrnF r , , , ( ( f r r r ! , r . \ . rLrh e r , , nr( .h.anis l |e nrxr.r ixt rsm, v)erxl rct i ,nn ro bt , \d\ r r \orurrnr_ humrnrsm t i )cnr \ rm'mlrs 'n and crude hcdonisnr. .urd rD,t , \ tdurtrsn ro s(rratlinStrrenhtknr Ihcrc s.|s thcretilre x tctl nccd on.r sidcs to tind a*lr rorsnrd. r(' .begilrg.itr. jn . nunnrr rhrr r.l nor tcad lo lhcsertr npp) con*-qrcoccr Bul l;r c8ct. rs sc shr sec. it was cru.jalrhrr lhrs nc* drrcd()r sboutd not invot lc lhc s rple,qr. /n rz of

\cr t reloml, rnd so on tn\rcrd. egct a.gues tharrhc t r t r , (cfrut ${mt l l r . un. tcr ty,nf rhr s. i ] lh( \c rd(a hJJ hcen,rc\(k 'n(LI

' (qurrd rn\( \ t |garron. ru ! r ,s h, .s lh( \ L, ,u lJ h( ratcn

IA ' PHENOMENOTOCY IN CONlEXT

forward in a less lim'red and onc-sided wayi onlv once lhis had bccn

i rhieved, hc believed. could lhe itjcas ofthe EnliShtenment help us

i f'nd $rrsfacrion in rhe world. mthcr rhan curting us off from rt. for

I anly th€n could uc hnd a $ry of R{onc'hng thc demand' of reason

I otd rclrgron. fr(cJom 4,,/ socral ,rder. .cient'nc natualism ,,'J

I iuman ralues, and 'o

on Unlikc rhc rrrduonrlisrs and conseNariter

/ of the counrer-Fnhghrcnmcnr. $ho quesrioned rhe crirrcal power of

: tlsson. and unlike the Romanlics, who tumed to an and aeslhelic cxpe-

ricnce as a curc for the ius ol rnodcmrtv lleScl s posilion is lhcrcfon

r distinchvc in connnuinS k) give Philosophy rhc cxalted role ol'

I rsloring our sen\o of inlcllectual lnd sprritull wtll-bcin8 albeii a

, philosophy lhal lhrnks in ! ncw. non_ilualislic wav. As He8cl puts 'l

i i r lhe'Di t lerence .ssay ol l80l : Whcn thc mighl o l union vtrnshcs

I from thc litc ofnrcn nnd thc lnrilhtscs bse their l;v;n8 conncction and' .c(iprciry .rnd Slrn tndcpcndcncc. the nccd of philosophv !n$s'

(DlS: 9l) .

' Il is brcaurc of his insistencc lhrl qc nrust lcam how to break

down the opposrtrtn bct*.cD ce.i.rn lundnmcntal coo.epls (such as

frcedom and necessiry. onc tnd mrny. and i) on). lhal Ilcgcl s thouShl

b chara.leued as /rdl& tn ?/ llcgclhrnNcllu\.s this teml quxc rurelv.

ud his only prol,rscd d'\ctrsson ol shrt hc m.'ans b\ rt r\ rn ( hrptcr

Vl of hts llnLr.lqx.lia /-.,4k', ,jntrtlcd Iog1. l:urlhcr l)clincd an(l

Div ided . In lh is shon chrPtcr. l l .gcl drsrrngstshcs thr( . stxs. \ 'n

rh '

dcvelopnrcnt oi thouShl. $htch h. k lcnt , t ic \ is l r I rh. bslrxcl s 'dc. or

lhdl o l underslandrnS: (b) lhc l ) i { leelrenl . o. l l [ l o l nelr l ' !c rcrnnr i (c)

thc Spc.ulrrae- or rhrr o lposi l i \c rc lnD-l l I \79. I l l l ) lh 'hAt

ila8c. ot underslxnrling. 1\ chrrrcrcnrcd !r rhlr licully ol lhought

which rrcnls its corrcepls !s rpplrerlly discrclc rnd (rn llegcl s lcnns)

'lirir. : tt thLrcforc \ricts k) li\c(l d.tcmnntrttrns rnd thc disl!rclne\\

ofone dercnDinalion lion rrr,,rhcr .lcry sulh ltmrled hslrrct n lreals

r | h l l l inr r subshn.c rnd bcinS ol i t \ own ( l i l : {80. p l l3 l l ranslr-

||,,|n mo rlicd). Hclcl acktn'wlcdgcs rh.l $c $ill ahtrvs hnd rr lcmpl_

Inl t lo thnr l of rh ings in rhrs $ny. ns $e s.ct io ordcr the *or ld 'n lo

dirlinct arrd self idcntrcal asll.cts. and up to d point thrs cah bnng great

mtctltclurl and pracl ical benttirs: lhc nrslalclhc undcrstadtnS makes.

hrwcvcr, rs ro forgtt lhai lhese aspccls are tibstracti(nrs m.dc rgatnsl

thc hrelS(iund ol ! morc eomplc\ rnte.depcndencc lhis mrslake is

15

+

fNE PHENOMENOLOEY IN CONIEXT

brought home ro rhe understanding in rhe second or djalecticat srage otthoughl. whi.h js thc inherent self-subtation ofrhese finire dctermin!-l ions dnd lhcirransl | ion intorheiropposi ter ' (EL: |8I . p_ I I5 i r ransla-llon n()diliedl: .iis prlrpose is to study rhings in their own being a.dnrolenlcDt and lhus lo demonsrare lhe finirude ofrhe parlialcategoriesol undcrstrnding ( t t l_r {812. p. I17). Hcact argues rhal i t is here rhats.cprrcrsm linds

'ls naturat place. for when the understanding is forceil

|o scc rhrt rrs eonccprual divisions tc.d it into incomprchension. ir mayeonrc ld (loubt rhar wc can elcr arrilc at a sarisi:clory grasp of ho!\lh| | rgs xrc (c l . Mc( i inn t99.1. V. thcrg t99t : t97 2t8). Howevcr. henr\r\N rhnl rhc rcsutr\ oflhe drrtccticat sl!g. are nol ,nercty .negarive.In rhr\ sry ftrthcr. thcy tcrd dn ro thc lhird Nnd tjlrt nagc ofr.zrrr.{hr.h aptrchcnds rh. unrty ot thc dcr$mrnrrions in their oppositionUrc !llirmrtion. which ;s enrbod'cd ir rherr dissolution and rhei. transi-r0n ( l : l I \81. p I ler r runstrr ion modif icd). lhus. at icr we hlve beenk'recd k) rclhink our concepls in such r wiy Ns ro brcak down thc'rbslrncr "eirheroi of lhe underslandrng (El_: t802. p l t5) . wc wirhcn arfive ar I ncw conccprual nandpornl. from which it can be secnth.l rhcsc conceprs can be broughr togelhcr. thereby overcoming thcsccplical aporia ol-rhc diatccticat sragc. Accord'ng lo Hegel, withoulthts conceptuil transformatjon, rt sill be rmpossible for us to see rheworld withoul apparent incohcrencei onty once we ba!e identrltcd andsurpasscd the riaid conccpruat dichoomjcs ot.rhc u|derstrndjng willwc be ablc to conccive ofrcality in a way lhat is srristhcluy lo reirson.' Ihus.asl lcgel puls i t . [ r ]hc ha| te ofreason is thc struggtc to breakut rbe rilidity tu which lhc undersrdDdrng has rcduccd cverything.,whilc thc

'netaphlsic oJ undeNlrnding is dogmxric. bccruse il

'n ' ln l r ins hal f t ruths in rhcrr i$tat i0n. : the idcct ism ol .speculat i !c

phrb$phy crr ies out rhe t r in. ip lc of torr t i r ) rnd shou,s thr t i rc.n reach beyond the in.dequatc lbmrutrncs ot rbsrrrcl rhought.( l i l : g l2z. pp. 52 1).

Hegcls oul took herc nrsy lhcr. lbrc hc t rkened to rhose whockrm that when we lrc iiced sith aptarcnrty irrftcrrble inre ectualp.obtcnrs. $,e shoukj not try ro answcr thcm hcad on . by takjnS upone srdc o. the other. bul shoutd rather ncl) hrck en,l uppty oursctves'rcflectivcly (as Heget puc it). and ask how il is the prohtem hasnnsen In the lirsr place: once we see thnr rhc prubtcm has its soufcc

lHE PHENOMENOTOGY IN CONTEXT

in a set of one-sided assumplions if !e cah overcome lhl]i onc-

idcdtess. then the probl€m will simplv dissolve d wc can escaDe

6. 'oscillation' between one unsatisfaclory slance a'd its equallv

unsatisfactory opposite (Cl AW: 2. translation modified The ques'

tions which philosophv fails to answer. .}re answe'ed bv seer'g lhal

ircy should not be so posed in the 6rsl place') However' where Hegel

rtitiers from -uny

more ,"cent philosophers who otheNise share thts

;rherapeuric' appioa"l wirh him (cll Wittgenstein 1968 Austin 1962)

l. lhal he does not take this approach in order lo champ'on rhe

dD€riority of'ordinary languge or our 'pre'philosophical outlook

irrrns r le -re ' "na,r"rLr. ion{

of phr lo 'oph} Jnd rr ' IbrFcrrrnF i l

; . . . . . ""- ' " " r . ' . " . "prron ol rhrnts ' Rrrh(r ' for H(Pel r r N rh(

other way rounLl. as lhe oulkrok oflhe undeBtnnding lb'ms lhe nalurnl

dlrting ;oint of our thoughts. so lhal il is onlv wnh rhe intencnrion

offuaher philosophrcal reieclion lhrt we can set our way lhrough the

Droblems thll this Senerates hff fion thinking lhal c

lrr ordinan pre-pt'it,"nptrrcal scieniillc. political or religious beliel\

Oouraj" ' t i " r . i r " r .n.

. l leScl e la i tDs rhar lhcv mun bc ref lccled on

Ohi lo 'onh,e.r l l \ r f$( Jr( In r1. l ( rh( r I ' ( r \ { r \ lh rr f r \e ' lh: ln ' '

lpf ty p"r ' " ,uutF. ' " . "1 lot ' { i l r r r : I ' r ' l l ( ! l r r i ' r r r ' r r1 ' rh( ' r

*r ' . r i r . ' .

l : ' f r ' r r r i , rL ' ' \ r r l lh, l ' ' ' rh( r l r "drrrrr l iF r IJ r ' r

unstablc on lhci f o$n. Thus. lhoLrgh i l r '

scns' I lcg ' l l ' lcs sonc ol

th€ ccnlrrl problerns ol phil(Nofh) r(J he p\crdo_fR)hlcnrs (in lhrl thcv

.re 'rcner.tcd

by oLrr $r! (n-looting rl lhe sorld futhc' lhrn Inhercnt

in thc rorli irsell, i,l v' shoultl hc rcnrl\cd rcllcclively rlrlrcr than

vi ! l -udhef inquirr . ) . hc n(tr . lhelcss holds lht t t lhcv 'Nn

onl) be deal l

wi th by lumirg r , fh ikrsoph). r i ' l nordnrr l ionr x !sonl !phtk 'n

ophy anrl rrol n|trftl eo s.iusncss ls cxnNbl' of lh' kr d ol

rlilllccrical rhrnking thal i\ i&luircd lo '\crcor]c

rlt!' lu/7lcs th'l

'notur!l consciousncsi its.ll gcncrlles

Whrl man seek\ in thrs silualion. ensnared here as he is in linL

ludc on cvcry sidc. is lhe fcghn ol a higher' morc subnlnli'l'

lnnh. in which lll opN$tions and contradiclions in lhe {inrlc

cln lind lheir linal re$lution. and frcedom rls full srlisiirclion

This is lhc regbn ofabsolule. nol linilc trulh The highesl truth'

irulh as such. is the re$lulion ol-lhc hrShest oPposilion lnd

17

IHE PB ENA ME N OLOGY N CONIEXT

contrndrcnon ln it validity and power are swept away fro,n lh.opposition bclween frcedom and neccssiry. bctween sp;rit an(lnaturc, bcrwccn knowtedge and its object, betwecn law rn{l

'mtulsc. liom opposil;on lnd contradicrron as sucn, wnare\cJ

forms rhcy may lake. Their validjty and puwcr ar opposrrron an(l.onrrad'crion is tsone. Absolute lruth proves thal neirher freedonrby (sell. as subjeclivc, sundercd from necessjty. is absoturely rrrue thrng nor, by pa.iry of.easonjng. is trulhfutness ro b.rsclbcd lo ncccssiry isotared and raken by itseli The ordinarf

on thc othcr hand. cannor exncale ilsetf f.onrlhrs oppositnrn rnd cjther .emajns despniringty in contrddiclioror clsc crsts it rsde rnd hetps itsclf in somc other way tsulphilosophy cnl.rs into the hcan of rhe setf-contradictory charrcteristics. knows thcnr rn rhcir esscnrialonc sidcdncss nor ibsolurc bur sclfdjssohing. and it sers thenrIn the hrmony and uniry which is rrulh. Io grasp thrs Conceploftrulh is the task ol philosophy.

(LA: l . pp.99 l00l

Thus. llegel sccs rhat the ftltc ol phjtosophy ;s to tead ordinaryJwd) f rom th( nfpo\ i t rnnJt rh inkrnE ot rh( Lndui

slanding. in order ro overcome lhc kind of concepturt lensions rhmake the wodd appear less rhan tully inrc igiblc to usi once rhis isxchi . !ed, we wi l l overcome thc inre ectu. t and pracl icr t d j l . t icut t ieslhrl hxvc ariscn becausc we do not bok at thc sortd rrtionr y, r(\ th ich l1oinr lhc sor ld wi l t look hack xt us rn r ratronrt mrnnc..

Nos. oh!iousl), shos.jng that e.an,n crr cn!ht. us k) l.eet .rrh(lne in lhe world bl. ticeirg ns tiom thr rltfcnr oppo\rr(nr hetwccn.on.eprs lrkc liecdori rnd ncccssily. one xnd rnrny. linrl. rnd rnfinjre.rnd n) on i \ an cnormous and rmbi l rous urdenrking. which r ims r tn(nh,ng lL 's\ lhrn thc dis$tur ion. t r l rhr l r .d j r i ( l r l t .problcms olt l r l , \ofhv rnd th. rpo. ias rhat rhesc.pposi tbn\ Scneralc. I t rs rhisnod.rtrkirg which fonns rhe hrsis of ltcSct.s rtr('lr./.?.,r2 s),slenr,bcSrnnrnS w;th rhc a 'xn.r In rhe l . )sn. l le lct scls out ro show ho*lh. \rnous e egoies oflboughl are diatcctrca y Interretated. rn suchx sr! th$ rhc conccplual oppositrons .csponsibte ibr our pc.ptexrlies(nn he .Lv,l!cd. oncc we rcthinl( rh.sc lirndrmenr!l norions. Hegcl

IHE PHENAM'NOLOGY IN CONTEXT

l!,!tc\h lhar of greal rmPunlncc In rhh 'e\pe(t

15 ho$ se ldncerrc

cf i f ' . - ' .g.* '

. i "n '* . \ r l .

p 'nr(ulJr rnd in ' I \ tdualrwhich he cJl ls

, * caeSories ol lhe nolron ' r 'conc(pl)^fot thLhold ' r i t i 'unl)

' ! rtcn rt'" oppositton bcr{eel rhe'e (dregorids is oter'ome rhnr rhe

i :r"- i" o* -*.1rudl

'chcm( cdn be rcsol\ed ro bc suncs(ded

I t r mme uni f ied an, l 'arnnal

ssld-ncru'e HLs( l lNuse\ on rheir

I r l "s.* ' . - , | . 'pe. ' l lv

on rhc rc ldrrnn berqe'n univenal and 'ndr-

I ruu; I . b(cNr he hold ' rhrr rhu) are ccntrdl ru our sav oi rhrnkrnts '

I aa*e rr ' , ' 'e.y

p"^" ' i ! ( { ( I PR 4258 f 2 lo ( on{dcrd 'n

the

I t r .a.r . , " r 'on"t ' r1 con'Nr ' rn Feneral In rh( unrr) dnd tnr(rrrn(rr1-

I tn"r ,n i 'e^"t ' r ' dnJIndrt Judlrr) ) Ar rh( mfrrph) ' i ' r l levr l $r

I ooo* r f ' " , , " , ' . ' 'ar ' r1 ur ' rn( rJedl lu lhe rndrvrduJlrr) o l th( rLr l onJ

I ! senirxr( rh( . lehdr. berqr(n PrJrrnr ' r : ' rn rh( 'n( hund dnJ n ' rnrF

f di r r ' un rhc orh{r ' $e upno'c rhi unr\(r 'a l t r \ of ( i 'cn(L rr t rh(

i hdividualrty ol existenls dnd so sencrdrc th' {lcbalc berwccn essen-

I t r l i ,sa"o.rn ' .nfut ' ' r ' q(orp"n t rnt ' ( r r l nroFare\r" Indr\rJual

I n ' r 'e ' . ,n. l \n F<.crrr( r l rc J(b3r! her$u(n ntrdr(drf 'edl i ' r ' Jnd

t 1. .a '*" ** '* i ' ' r ' ' "< rr fn '*( r l 'J Jn ! ( r \ r l r r ) r ' l rorm r . rh( InJl

? i iOuut ' r r ur n, . ru<. . rn( l - ' FJr"1.rr( ' l ' r JJhJr( \ ( r$ ' rn "rr(Jnrr ' r l

|td ists and conceptur I id.!listsi ud {' olposc lhe unilers|hlv 01(jod

bf ic indiv idualny ol-nran. ind v) g.nc (c thc dcbalc hcl*cen thcrsts

ld hunrn'r ' Ar r \ ( L l r ' r ( rn" l r ! r ' r l l ( \ ' ' q( i i i r r r r \ r r l t r r rntrrr

- l r ty, , l

lhuuFhr $ rh rh( rr t l | \ ' l r ' r l r r ) " l r r rdrrr ' { r ' In ' l ' r (nJt

' r '0. ;ebalc bclwccr rr l ional is ls rd cnt f i r icr \ ls Andr l lhe mnl and

Flrr i . , l lJ ' . r ' {L Jr ' r r r ' !Lr ' l r \ Jrr ' r ( r ' r ' l r ' rn rh(

;ltizci rs indiv u!1. tn(l $) stncrrrc thc dcbrrc b'twcen com'nunr-

i.tiunis and libefulivnl $c drningursh lhc unilersll intlrcsl lron llre

|ndi!idrul inler.sl, xnd nr Scrcrurc thc dtbNlc berwcen thc ego'sl and

dtc altruini wt dislrnguish th' uni!'Arl!t! ol thc ScnerNl good li(n

d|G pani.ulinly ol thc indilidurl rgent Nnd so Scnerale thc debatc

lFlwccn lhe utilitarion rnd lhc Kxnlirn: wc distinguish the unrlersat'tv

of luw Iio r thc lieedom of lhe indiriduNl and so gcnernle lhe dcbale

tllwccn lhe dcllndcr ofrhc slirr' rnd thc anarchrsti and we distrnSu'sh

$c unilersllity of.i8hls rnd nrlunl l'w lionr lhe plrlicularily oflocal

!rdn(,ns ind cusloms, and so gcnerale lhe dcbate betwecn thc

@rmopolilan who thinks thal .ll sociclies \hould be rulcd in the samc

rrv. and lhe comnunitariNn t!ho lhinks divcrgcnt cuhural hrslorrcs

19

1I] ' PHENOMENOLOGf I I { COXTEI(I

should b€ resp€ctcd.t Hegcl thcEfore claims that cnrciat issu6 ol

T:ly"l:::.li:"T:r"cy. crhic!. rnd pot icat and rErisrous rhoushrare al asso(,ared wrrh rhe ways in which th. categon"iot *i""oiur.ril:l'i{.r"1,y.,jy,.,* conccrv.d. such rhar rppaEnrry insup€r.aore pfitosophrcd dinicuhre! wi bc g€r!.mrcd unlcas rhes€ csrcgone.

T":1:lll::ej,h.,:1 ..cdirrd.in rhc nshr way. rhul *r,*i.g"rraRs or rhe tarturc oI.rhe undcrsrandrng, ro ovcrcome rhc opposnionDer$cen rhc\e csregofies. h€ csn point ro a whole s€ries ofilvision,In our v'cw ot rhe qortd. b€rwe.n absrracr d concrcre. dcat and reat.oft and many, necessrry and fre€dom, sbre and citizen, momt taw andsell--rnrcrcsr. gdrrat sr and panrcutar wr . rcason and tradjfion, Godand m n. l reget bct ic!ed rhat rhc dr!rs ion bcrqeen unrters{t and Indr-vdual lie! behind aI lhese dichotomiesi bd ar rhe same rime, hcb€lievcd rhat *e do nol have ro ser rhes€ c.regories apan, bul cm s.c

lT-r:,1. ,111,-{ ,ndr\ idu"riry wirh unrlersar(y. rhe one aspccroepenorng on rhe orher rcfl EL: {t64. pp. 22U e, SL: 60jr." Bec;uscheger thouShr rhar$ese are rhe categories rhrr can b€ besr rnr€gmreJrn rfls-way. rn hrs /.,,B,..Heget works rhrough orher sers ofcar.lonc,

1:"J^1-:: *'lc.and norhrnsness. quanriry and quar,ry. idenrni and

_olr.r-€.1e1:c' thoh.and p_an. one and many. e,sence and 4pearance.suosunceand snnbule, freedom lnd necessiryr. toshow rhat wrth rhesecaregones cenarn rcsidual dichoromies r€mrin. It is rhereforE onlvonce wc amve ar rhc caegoncs ofunrtenat. panrcutar. and rndirrdualrnar truty dBtecrrcat rhintrnS b€comes possibte for us: the aim ofphrto-sophrcat reflectron is rhercby achrcved.

,, .n:r'."* reachcd rhe careSoncs of rhou[hr in rh( l.rn. ehrchheFLr tnhr\ $r[ cnahte us ro . toot ar rh. wortd 6rrh t jy. . rn thcne\ l r$, ' h. \ , ts of lh(. l r , n / ,7r l r , / Hefet m(^e. un ro rhou rhar thr.rnen (trirhh.r lhc sortd m toot rariona y h.rt Jr u\. In \u(h ! $ay lharrcason catr tind sarisfacrion in it. tn thc phito\ot,h 1,1 Ndtu,e, He,:clconsrdcrs the naru.nt wortd in rhjs rega.d, tryin8 ro show rhar wh;rcwe nnti eonceptual diliculries in our underslanding of narurc obrexamptc. rn lhe norion of.aclion d a die{ncc.) rhis can be rcsohedlhrouSi.a more dratccricat rpproach. A\ ltcgct purs rt rn hE dr$u!sron or hcat. .lrlne tart here is rhe same as rhar thmuShour rhe *hotcof rhe ph'lsoph) ol n.rture, ir rs mcrcty to rcptace fie categones olrne undcrsrandinB hy rhe rhouShr-rclarion\hrp\ of rhe sD€{ulal,\c

1I iE PHENOMENOLOGY IN (ONiIXI

lotion, and to grasp and dctermin€ ihc ph.nomcnon in accordancedb $c fsncl (EN: ll. 9305. p. 88). Li,k3vtis., in rhe Philosophf oI

philocophy, whcrc a8ain his aim is to dcmonstratc $c valuc ofdidcdical ftihod rcns on rhc cncgoricrl invcstigations of ih€

. Hcgcl docs nol doubi th. far-r€achirg sigrificancc of thalfor all th€s€ ff€lds ofinquiry, in so far as all involvc con-

assumptions .hat must b€ madc dialcctical if th€ &mrgin8in our thinkin8 is to bc avoided:

H€s€l considcN thc human world ar rhc lcvch of mthropology,of nind, psycholoSy. cthics, politics, 3n, rcligion,

The role of the Pfierom€rology

metaphysics is nothing bul the rang€ of univeftal thoughl-dclerminations. and is as ir wer€ rhe diamond-ner into whichwe bring everlrhing in ordcr to mak€ ii inrelligible. Everycultured consciousness has ils meraphFics. ils instinclive wayofthinking. This is the absolute powcr within us, and we shallonly mast€r il if we make il th€ objecl of our bowledge.Philosophy in g€neral. as philosophy. has diferenl catcgoriesfmm thos€ of ordinary consciousness. All cultural chanSer.duces itself ro o difierencc of categories. All rcvolutions,whelher in the sciences or world hisrory, occur merely b€caus€spirit has changcd its catcgories in order to undenitand andcxamine whal belonSs to it. in ordcr to posscss l)nd lmsp ilselfin a truer, dc€per, more inrimrtc and unilicd manner.

{ l :N: I . .N2462. p.202)

Wc have rhercfore seen in a sener.rl $ry what llcgel $anrcd his philo-nthical systcm lo achicve. and how he hop€d ir would achieve ir: byo$ling us lo think dialcctically and so to resolve ccrtain blindspots'h how wc take the world to bc. ir will allow thc world to look backh I lalional way. to manifest ils ft)tronll strucllrc to us. Thc question

Dw.ris€s: trhat rol€ is therc fot rhe Phe,onenlog, wlhin this enreF

ti!.. and how does thal role comc about?As we hrvealready seen, HeSe I himself characterizcs lhe Prero-

rrrlo{l, as an introduction to lhc system, and now il can be rnade

_______-

IHT PHENOMENALOGY IN CONTEXT

clcn.c. why such an iniroductron is needed. and how it miSht proceed.Ilegel l{lcs ir rhal in order for his system lo succeed in showing ho$we can lind rnt(,ndl saristaclion in the world. we musl enter into Ipncess {)l eonccptual thcrapy (undertaken in the t ( rc/qp../i4)t buthe recdgn'/cs t"opreliminary difficullics here. The firsr is that we ma)lccl no nccd lbr thrs lherapy. because wc do nol see the problem lbrwhich lhis rhcrapy rs rhe solulron. or because wc LIo nol sce lhal Don{lirlccti(xl lhinkrnS is lhc source ol the problem. or because wc lhinklhc tr)blcnr is int.insicrlly itresoluble The second dif]lcuhy is thNl$c. tLr \ l rnry nol know ho* b ao rbout nr.k ing the k lnd ol d ia lccr icalrc!1sion\ lhrr l lcScl belrcves Nrc rcquircd k) ta l low through rhe kni-s i l i (nrs. l lhc t , t ]k

As rn intnJductron t(J rhc slstem. lhe /'rrrorkrx)/.tf theretb.fh!s tuo lirndrnrcntrl trsks, onc m)lilirtronal rnd lhc othcr pcd!8ogi('lhc motiuli()nxl trsk is to nukc us see {h} wc rc r.Vrir.,/ k) undcrrirkc lhc kind ol .cflcclivc cxaminalon of our eategories thal t!kc\place

'n lhe lr)An. llegel points oul rhrl though we ,(. categoncs rl

lhc lime (such as being. cause and cft_ccl. fitrcc) $e do not usuall)rccognizc rhar the categorics we rdopl in this \dy ha!. r vit.l Intlu,encc on how w. vies and acr 1n the world, and thus wc do Dot s..the impo.lancc of c.itic.lly reflecling on thctrt:

elcryone possesses and uscs rhe wholl!'xbstr.cr .rtc8ory 01b.trrj. Thc sun a in rlre sky: thcse graper d/. npe. xnd $ on d,/n?/r'rrrr. Or. nr ! hrlher sphere ol cduealion. *c fft,cccd k) lh.rehlron ol c!usc rnd cf t ic t . t i rcc rnd i r \ n l ln i lcnr l ion. e lc. Al l( r , , k ihvle( isc !nd i r lcrs . rc cn[ ! in.d s nh n)el ! f 'hysic\ l ikc th i \xnd go\cni ! ( l hy r l . i l is the ner

"hieh holds r)gcrhcr al l rhc

.( d. lc f [ r$r l $h, ! l r ( rc0trc\ us Ln our . r r t ion xnd . f t lcr !o l ll lur lhrs n.r ( l r l : l i ,n\ r r . \ ! rk ! r .u oRl inrr l eons.kmsncs\i 'cner lh nonrcr(rrs hvers or sr lJ l l I l i i \ s lu l l eonrtr iscs ourL, i , isrr rnrcr( \1s r fd rhc ohte.rs thrr r rc hcl i t rc our inds. whi lcrhe u,rre^i l thr . rd\ o l lh. n. t r .n i rn our ol s ighl rn( l r rc notcrph.r l \ n ' !dc rhe !rhrcct o l our rc l lcctro ' r .

( ILHP: :7 8)

t{egel rhrnks rhat lhc bcst wry ofScr inS us k) t rhve to the hAn. lndlo lu.n iiom mei!'l! i.\,r( cltegories lr) librdrng them the nghllirl

22

JI lE PHENOMENOLOGY IN CONIEXI

'honourofbeingcontempl. tcd for lheirown sakes (SL: 3 '1) is lom.kc

vivid to us exaclly how impodnnt n is to think dialecticllly. bv

.howing what goes wrong for. consclousness whcn il does not Thus.

|s we shall see, ihe P/'et.,r(rdl.4tr operates by l.acing the develop-

mcnt of a consciousness lhroLrgh va.ious ways of lhinking aboul the

world (includins nself dnd olher consciousnesses), where rhis

consciousness is ficcd by appNrcnlly inrractlble difiiculties in making

rhe world a home . uDlil al lasi il comes lo recognize lhat whll under-

lies rhesc difljcultles is i1s liilurc lo lhink dialecticxlly: al lhis po'nl.

it is ready 1o makc thc trNnsilion lo the logn. wherc inslcnd ol mc.clv

bcing shosn why conceplual therapy mdtlcrs, we underSo the lherapv

i l$el l by making' lhoughts pu.c xnd slmple our oblect (hL: \1. p 6)

The Phenonetunogr thcrclitc ponruys consciousness in th.ce modes.

*here !l llrn it 1s blilhcly obltrious kr rny potcnlill pnrblenr rnd so

is chalaclcrizcd by a sclf conlident ccnainly : ir is thcn liced w'tb !

problem. bnt is unahle lo rcsol!e it givcn lhc coNrcptual resourccs !l

iB disposali il thcn succu'nbs lo dcsp.ir. xnd reities lhc problem bv

trcaling il as unrcsolvnble. as inhe.crrl in lhc world. Onlv whc all

these thrce nrnces arc crhruslcd Nill con\c(nbncss he rcldv k) rellect

on the prnicuhr assunrpt i ( ,ns lhat at . cdusing i t lh. d i f i icul ly, rnd onlv

whcn al l rhesc {ssrnlpl ions havc hccn sho*n r i ' tu problcnlur l . , wr l l

consciolsness bc rcady ro undcrS(' lhc kind ol pnrrnund rnrlysrs of

$c crrcgor ics of lhouShr thr t is f ( ,noscr l $ i lhrn l lcgt l s sfccu|r t1\c

phi losophy:

Qurre gcncr! lU. rhc l i rnr i l i f f . l rs l bccru\r 1r is I t tn ' l i r f . ts

nol cogni l i rc lJ- u ( lcrs lood lhe conrnuren $r! in shich wc

dceci !e e, lhcr ourscl \es or olh.h t rboul underdrrding is bJ"

rs{nning sotr i . th ins r t l in i l iNr. rn( l xe.cPlrng i t on lhr(

nccount i wi lh al l r ls P(rs rnd cons. such knowrnS ncvcr gcls

rnywhcfc. rnd ir knows nol $hy. Sublect and oblccl. (bd.

Nrrurc. t lndcNhndrng. scnsibi l i iy . and so o , . t uncnr ical ly

trkcn lbr granlcd x\ limrli.r. cslablishcd rs vrld. and 'nade

into fixed poinh tur naning and stopping Whrlc thesc rcnrain

unnrove.l, lhc knowing aerivit]. gocs back Nnd lbnh belwccn

thcm. lhus nrolng onl) on thelr surfirc!' llcncc the lask

nosadays consisls . !r liecing deredninrle 0rughls fro rheir

23

_

IHI PHEIIOMENOLOGY IN CONIFXT

lixrry so rs io give acttlahy ro lhc unilcrsal. and impan to irspintunl lifc.

(PS: 18 201

llescl thus (hrractcri/$ his rpproach in thc Pr.zoudolosl A '[a]secflrcrs r thnr it dirc.ted .Sainst lhe wholc BnSe of phenomenalcons.krusncss l$hichl renders rhe sp;n for rhc 6rsr rime compclcnrk, c\:r|nrnc *hrt rruth is , by forci.S consciousncss ro queslion 'all lhcnl.rllc(l nxtLtrrl dcn\. thoughts. and opinionr. . . idcas wirh whichthc conserousncss lhit scrs lhour thc exrminlt()n lof rruth] xftuiarldnd|s n ' l l l i l lcd i rnd hampcrc(I , ! r rh l n i r . in facl . incapable olcrrrryrn8 out whr l r t $rnls lo Lrn. lcnrkc (PS 50).

lk)$c!!.r. o in!ry eonsci(nrsncss nlr! rcsisl rhis task ofspcctrlalilc phil()y)thy not mcrcly bcca sc n linds no need for il (rh(molr!!tkrurl pr,hlem): !l mry do so bNau\c {as llcBcl rccognizes) itlinds it i(x) counrcFinruitile aDd Inlcllc.turlly dcmanding. as nscon(cptual ccnainries are ovenum.d nnd I is rcq(ircd lo walk oDits hcad fihc pcd,Bo8ic problem): Thc mind, denied rhe use ol-irsfnnrilia|dcas. ltels the ground whcrc n dncc stdxl fim and ar homclakcn.{ay liom beneath il, and. when tmnsponed inro thc regrcn ot'purc thought. cannot tellwh€rc in thc world it rs (l-L: 13. p. 7). Hcgellhcrcfore Sivcs thc Prenor'.,r,1)E| a rolc hcre too. helping conscious-n.ss k) Sradually qurstion thosc conccprual ccnaintics and thus tr)

' )!e k' a posilon whcre

'r can sec whrl it nlSht rrenn to grle thcm

up. lhus, as rr procceds th.ough t|na Ph!,tnDLrk'h)t<r.di,c\ conrc k) scl aside sorne ol il\ 'linrilirr rdc s . so thil by rhe endrl rs fr.pfc(l tur lhc kind of c\flicir cftn,nrli,nr of lhon ideas ihnrr \ r rhrc!cd In lhc l , )sn' This r \ lhc Fdrgogic funcl ion ol rhcl 'h,n ' rnLn,n, ,ut : r t hclps ordinrry .on\en{,$es l icc up ro rh. l }crrl[|I {tr Do lnr8cr take rhe rpparcntl) oh\r,rs drslinctrons of lh.und.Nhn(l',rt lilr Enntcd. lnd !, nulc\ \tcctrlatrtc phrloiopht

lh( /'r,,r,r.x,l)Rl is th.(Lrc Nfi[.n In I drsrir]ctive sryle. i\o hr r : r t hr \ r {d.v ro rel l l ron] r$o tornrs or ' \ rc*: rhc poinr ot 'vrc$ or 'of t l ,nan eonsciousncss, which i \ un( icrgoing lh is exper ienceol nl(rving lion .oniidenl certainly k) dLsp ir. kr rcncwcd cc.lrinlyds rl rcvrscs rls nosition and sccs rhings i r dillirenr wayt and thcpdinl o l l iLw o! Ucgel (and us) as,rr .nr^ ot rh is consciousncss.

IAZ PBENOMENOLOGY IN CONTEXI

who aheady Gcupy the spccuhtive standpoint. and who can thcrclorc

rc. in a way thal consciousness rtsclfcanno( whal is going wronS lir

h.nd why. Thus. Hegel wrll olien slep back from me.ely de$rabing

Itc crp€nence ofconsciousness itscll. lo commeni on wha! is zdrl'

loin8 on. or to anticipate how cvcnlully cons.iousness will come k)

Ftolve a panicular problem. wherc at that poinr in ih€ naranve $is

b not apparcnt lo con!.iousncss nstlf. Fbr consciousness ns€ll:lhere-.

bt .rie Phenonenoh&t is ! ! id ,('ttdl'l a. as it responds to somc failed

position with anotherposithn that is cqually onc-sided. and so cqually

doom€d to collapse. Bul al thc $mc time s? (as phenomcnological

ot&rver") leam a sreal deal lrom sccins whal rs goins wrong. and

wh.n (af the end ol the Phrnnmtnnh't<rl conscrousncss rs ready t)

rdopt our srandpoint, ihen it too will bt in a Position lo leam lhcse

(iilcn rhrs co.ceplion <\l thc I'h.noht.nob8l. il is thc.clbre

po3siblc to see why thc /'rd4d,r1n,/,,(r' Iorms 'n

ini.oduction to ltu:

ty$cm scl out in thc fr.rt /d/d.ra and ossrialql *orks, and why alv)

nuteriaf from n is rep€ated n1r/tn thnl systcm. in the PhibloPh.r ol

9rr,r: fbr in thc Ph.,onrnoL\\ wc Jusr ctFri.ncc rhe dilncultrcs

a|l|sed by our non-dialccticll us. ol rhc .rtc8on.s. whilc in lhc

Phililothr .l Spi.it shich lilhtr \ thc Los, In t hc !y\rem. w. !r. ab lc

to put those dillicuhics more e\plertly In lhc liShl ol rbc crt.Soncrl

d iscussion ol thel-d8n. and v) drunosc lhcnr hl l ly iD i ery lh i r r rs

Dot yel possible in the Pr(r,rr.?r,/,,{r rtsclllAs well !s linking lhr /'r,frr,?r)/,/*r t{r thc rcsl ol hrs syslcm.

|nd panrculady lhe /-ds! . in ! nllunl $rJr, I hol)c thll anolher adlrn'

l.r8c ol ihis cmphasjs on lic drrlcclrc *rll bc(omc clcar $ wc prNecd:

n.nlcl'|. it Nrll .tlld! us kr lrerl thc /'r.r,rn2,/,,4r rrsell .s, unrlied

*or!, bul $llhour ha\ in8 lo (h(on r hc rc\l ii orticr lo do so Onc dr lli_

culty is lhlr rhe Prdort,r)/,,l.t drs.usscs conscousness both at ftc

lcvcl ol rhe rndi\idual. and ut thc s(Eial lclel (nron panrcularly 'tr

Chaplcr Vl on Sp'r(. n rts trelt cnt ol thc (kcck sorld and thc

f,nlithren'n.nr, lbr eianrplc ). {h.rc \omc eoNncntllor! ha!e sccn this

! problemaiic I for re lircnccs md llnhcr discussion, see PiPpin I 991l

55 6). But, on my account thcrc is nothing pxrlicularly troubling hcrc:

for . as l lcsel h imsel f srrcsses (c l : l lN: l , $2462, p.202). lusl ns wc

crn scc thal trrdi!iduals crrrploy trleSorics in hos thcy think about lhc

24 25

1H' PHENOMENOLOGf IN COXIEXT

wo.ld, so rm do cultures and $orld-views in which indaviduals Dariiclpalc. in thc s€ns€ that lh.s. can also be chsBcteri2ed as involvingc€nain categorial assumprions (ar when Hegcl says, for erampl€, lhatthe (ireeks lacked the mod€m concept of 'rhc pemon'). Frorn theperspective of my reading. thcr€for.. ir is hardly surprising rhat thediscussion oD€rates rt both the individual and rhe cultural hisroricatlevel. This in my view explains why in Chapr€r VI. HcSct fc€ts ablclo m*c his nororious move from 'shap€s merely ofcon$cioulness' lo'shap(s ofa world (PS: :65) Anorhe. difnculty rhar has faced manycommentators is thar thcy have soughr for unily by seeing lhe1r.,,),r.,r,/o$, as lduscd on onc problem or issue: for exampte. rharllcgel is herc ofitring ! rhcory ol knowl€d8e, d€signcd ro ovcrcomelhe fimiliar problems of sccpticism. relativism rnd subjectivismi burlhcn they havc strugSled lo inlcg.ate more obviously erhical or socialparlr ofthc text irto this r$din8 (ct Pippin 1989: I54{1. where hclnes to grve an epistcmoloSrcal accounr of rhe masrcrslave s€claon.which in my lieu is more natumlly read as addressinS issucs in socialphilosophy; and Rockmore 1997, which stans by rrcaring cpisremo,logical issues as fundamenlal. bur rhen fails ro locarc such issues inlargc pans of rhe rert). Onc€ a8ain, however. on my approach rhisproblem do€s not arise: for. on this approach. whar unities thePh?nonenolopt is rhc consistcncy of its diaSnostic ,k,rr,.1. which isthcn applied to a numbcr of ./t/irczr problem areas. O'rce rhis isacccprcd. there is no nccd lo look for ore kcy issuc. or ro trear rheI'h.non."oh4!, as a conrriburion ro on. a.ea of phrlosophy (as acontrthuoon ro ep,stemok)8y dr erhics. or philo$phy of rctigion. orq h!rc\'.rr: rnrhcr, rhc unny ofrhc work comes tirm ils alrcm loshowlhrr t! srmrlar di8i.ulty

's common ro a ranSc of concenrs. shrch all

shos thc srm. hrnd ol drstl)nr(n In our rhinking (cll NaScl l9tt6. whohtes thc pr|blcnr ol r.con.tling sublccrn. dnd objcerivtj standpoinrslo undcrlic iirndamenrnl issucs in clhrcs. polirical phibsophy. episre,nxtoSy. ind metaphys ics ). 'l hus. in answer lo llrym\ question. howone work cnn Includc a discussr)n ol senre perception and also.rhcmadncss of Drdcror's Dusicrln . . [and] rhe r:naticism of Marat andRob€spiene (tlaym lli57r 241). wc can reply (rarher profaicalty.perhaps) thal all re\crl diolcclroal limihrions ar dilTcrenr tev€ts and lodifT€rent degrees

26

rHE PHENOMTHOLOGY I I I CONTEXT

Fimlly. t hopc $at my spproach |r|.y sh.d sonlc light onll rotorious probl.m of cxplaining Hcg.l'! transitions in fiePknonenoloa/, fiom onc form of conscioNnds !o thc ncrl someit.dings requir. th€!. tmnsilions to b€ extrcm.ly ngorous. Forqrmpfc, thos. readinSs rhar lle9i th. Phenonenologr' ls a transccn-

'&rirl argum€nt !!c commiticd to thc vi€w thet .3ch ncw fofm of

tblciousicss is inlroduccd as a ncccssary condidon for th. poesibility

ofdrc prcvious fonn ofconsciousn.ss. (Ct Taylor | 972. Normsn | 9E | :

l2l, Neuhouser 1986, Pippin 19E9, Stcwan 2m0. I mysclf have

bllowed Taylor in arguin8 lhal Hegcl's tr€atmml of'Pcrccption'

Fttains som€ inter.sting tmnsccndental claims aboul lhe conl.nt of

'.rEcptual

exp€rienc€ (scc Slem 2000: 164 75); but I am doublful that

6i. proc€dure can be made to frt rlrc Phenonenologt as a whole ) On

oihcr r€adings. Hegcl is seen ss aiming to eslablish his posnion as

biqu.ly coherenr by showing .rrl othcr possible world'views

b involve eme sod of incoh€renc€. and thar this requires him to b€

arla8riw in movinS lhrough th€$ *orld-views. so lhat every lransr-

lbo must involve the smallcst possible altemtion froth one pcrspective

5 lh€ n€xl. (Ct Forstcr l99lt: 186, [T]he "n€ccssity" of a lransition

iom a shaD€ ot consciousness A to a shape of consciousness B jusl

aon3ists in the conplex lacl that while shapr A provcs lo be im-plicilly self-contradicbry. shrpe B prescNes shapc At const'tut've

aonceptions/concepts hul in a way which modilics thcm $ as 1o elim-

hute lhe s€lf-contmdiciion, and morcover d(]€s so whil. dcpaning less

hom thc meanings of A s conslilulive concePoonslconccpls than a.y

othcr known shape which F-rforms lhar lunctrcn. ) Thc advantaBe of

F.dings of this son rs thnl thcy mke seriously lhe lhinS! Hegel says

in some ofhis progmmmatr rcmarks. fo. cxlmplc lhal the 8oal as

wcll as rhe senll progrcssx'n tiom one fonn ofconsciousness to lh€

ncrt is 'neccssar i ly t ixcd (PS: 5l) . The di incul ly. however. is that i t

b h6rd for these readinSs lo show ftar the rigour thty demand is aciu-

dly to be found in the dcvclopmenl ofthe Pr.'d'.d/.,R) l.rs Forsrer.

6r e)(ample. implicitly concedcs. when hc comments that the lexl

tright need to b€ 'reconsrucled in orde. to fil the melhod he proPos€s

ftr ir: see Forrer l99lt: l{i7 Cf. al$ K. R. weslphal l99lib: 94 5).

hccd with lhis diflicully. olher connenlstors have Sone lo thc oppo-

aic ertrsnc. and denied that there is any real mcthod al all underlying

27

IHE PI]ENOMENOLOCY IN CONTTXT IHE PHENOMENOLOGY IN CONIEXT

so it regards these universah as instantiated in a substratumi but lhis

rnak€s it dimcult to see hotr lhe substmtum relales to the Propeares.ro it moves 1o a conception ofobjccls as lhe appearance ofa holistic

.truciure of interconnected tbrccsi bui this s€ts up a iroblematicdualism between a world of scnsible phcnomena and the lupeF

r€nsiblc beyo.d of theorelical understanding; so consciousness rejccls

this beyond and instead sccs the wodd as somelbtng rt can master

lhrough action; and so on. Or. to take some examplcs from latcr in the

Phenoncn.log]: Hegcl n.gues that Problems wilh Greek elhical litb

lcad consciousnes to quesnon the perspectilc of the (nceks and to

introducc ne\t notions ol rndividualily and frccdom. bul lhcse concepts

sre thcmsclles dcvcloped one_sidedly. in ! way thal leads to frcsh

difficulties highlighled in vinous {lys through the chapters on

'Reason and Spirit Likcwise, he argues th.i while modcm con-

sciousness has become dissalislied wilh a cendin kind of dogmatic

rcligious belicf. x molcs bcyond thit in a l;mitcd \fay. thcrcbv rntro'

ducing lhe kind of Enlightenmcnl st.ndpoini thal is merclv

materillislic and ulilillrian Thus. in all thcsc tr3nsitions. I{egel wanls

us. as phenonrenological obscrlers. to scc thllt the moves conscious-

ncss makes arc inevi lable given i ls d i r lcc l ical l imi lNl ionsl l rkcwrse. t le

arc supposed k) sce th.l lhcse limitalions nlean lhrl rl crnnot prcpedy

cscape the di f l lcul l ies ol-onc s l rndfoinr whcn i t m)\cs k) rnothcr.

becausc il docs so ur r nrc.ely onc sidcd nrxnncr (hlv rt rhc .nd oi

rhe Phthonwtulorr. when thc nrturll .onseiou{ncss !!c har. bccn

obscnins ar lasl fccls rhis disulrnicr t rnr lar r lsc l l : wi l l r l be rc ldv lo

reliccl on lhe crtc8orral rssunrf(rons drll hoe lcd il lo lhis rmPlsse.

rhc.cby l inal ly undersr lnding rhc n. .d l i ) r lh. k ind of phi losophical

sr l ierrnr iDr l ion requircd in ordcf l ( ) xchi . \c ibsnulc kno\t ing ''lhus. irt thc cnd ot lhc /'r.,r,'.rrr)!f. cons.knrsne\s cNn sce thar lrr

liom lh. worlJ nsclf being ffalional or altcn. *h.r secms lo hapPcn

ouls;de ofr l . lo bc an acl iv i ly d i .ccled against i ( . is real lv i ts own doing'

(PS: 2l) : r l that poi i t is rcrdy lo beSn lhe k ind ofcalegor ia l cx!m-

inalion lhat *c llnd in lhc /..)An. and lhe prep!rutory rolc ol lhe

Pr,n, ,"r , , ' / ' ,Ar rs dr Jn (rrd

the order in which the lbrms ofconsciousncss develop. (Ct: Kauthann1965: l7l. And rhc Phenonenolog is.enrinly unrillentshdlili.h:undisciplined. arbilrary, full of digressions. nol a monumenl 1o theauslerily ol the intellccturl conscience and lo ca.efulness and preci-

sion bur a wild. bold, unprecedented book lbat invites comparison wtrhsome grcrt litcnry mlslerpieces. ) Readings of this kind have theadv.ntrgc of nol rrying to hold Hegel to a rnelhodological ideal thalhc fuilcd k, nrecli blrl on the other hand lhcy make a nonsense olllcScl s own elnrns li)r lhc syslcmalic nalure oi his work. and rgnorcthe kind ol \rruclurc lhrl ,d, hc ftrund in it

Ndw, on nry rpp()!ch wr can lake the trrnsitions seriously.bul .1rc nol connnillcd 1() lhese being more riSorous than a reahslicintc.prcrarion of thc acturl te\t allows On lhis approach. there isindecd i necessary progression and intcr(onnectlon ol the tbms ofthc unrerl conscbusness (PS: 50). in thc scnsc thal ns irndamenlNllimirntions lbrce consciousncss lo face cenain dillicultics, and k)hindle these dimcukies in r p{.lieular wa} ( onsciousncss will there-lbre lind irself caughl up in a characleristic movcmcnlr slaning lionrone posirion. il comcs ro see that lhal posilion lerds to problems thara.e un.esolvlblc liom thal staDdpoint. Consciousness will lherelore b.plungcd into desparr. as it now linds no s tislhclion in lhe wo.ld.bul only pLrrzlement rnd truslrution. llot'ever. HeSel claims thrtconsciousness cannot renuin conlenl wi lh lh is sens. ofdisst t is tuct ion.rs lhoughr lroublcs ils thoughllessness. and ils own Lrnrcsl dislurbs itsincnir ' (PS: 5l) : i r musr rherelbre nrove to . i rcsh sl !ndpoinl . ln orderk) RLo!.r i t \ scnse ol-heing al honrc in thc {or ld l l $ i l l lherelbrcrdo| l r f .* FNpccr i \c hr. qucsl ioning une ol lhc rssumptronsol rhc p() \ , r rn i l ionr shrrh i l begrn l lo$ercr. rs ! DtJcly untc. l '(nr lunl . , t r ( lnrrr ! . rnsfcculr t i \c) .onseiou$css. n,1. . { \o in, onc's i ( ie( l ( t r rn( l r r lcctr . r l nHnncr. rnd n) nni \ ts r l xnorhcr Psi l ion \hrch(/ , ,1d! \ . o l thrs tnr{ s( lednc\\) , \ no mtrc $orkNhl.r so i l then plunge\in lo d.s|x i r on.c r8rro. ( )n l ) lhcn ro qu.slron lhc rs$rmpl ions ol l " lposir ion in rn rncon,pler. In.nnd. rDd so on I hus. l i , r e\ample. a l icrhnJr l ! \ r , \J1Lr , , i ) x ' q( r r , rJ(qu.rr( . ( , r ' . ( i , ,J .n$.

'no\r ' r , '

Pcreepl ion. $hich no kDg.r th inks ol-obl lct \ us mcre rndiv idur ls, bulrnnead lh i rks ol t lcnr .s bundles ol propeny'univcrsl lsr but th ismskes x di l l i .uh l r ) ( rp l r rc lhc uniry ol lhc obiccl !s rn indiv ual .

tII

Ii

!

2A29

lHE PHENOMENOLOGf IN CON IEXI

The Prela(e and the Introduction

(iiven that llcgcl thinks that lhe ordinarv consciousncss will b€ rcad'-

anil able k, lncc up kr the ordcal of dialcctical thinking (to lale or

. . ihe srrcruous cllon oflhe Notion'(PSi l5D onlv aner n has bccn

lhrough rhc ehaslening e,(pe.icncc ofthe P'd'o"""l{J' rl rs nol so

rurpnsing thlr hc holds rhal any anempt to lell us what such ihinking

rnr;hcs bclbrc wc httlc had lhat experience would bc wd|cd cffon:

wc would r cvirdbly nrisundcrs[nd whal was rcquircd. and bc unablc

k' Srasp shrr is demrnd.d ofus The Prefrcc lnd lhc Introduclon kr

thc Prda,tr.,t,Xr Jre thc.ctirc nolorious for lirlng 1o rssrst 'r'

rcadcrs b' t.lling rhcln .tnllhrnS In dd!anc' $oul lhe conclusrons lo

hc relched, !\ rhosc conclus(lns willonlv be prop'flv graspcd !r lh'

cn.l ol thc $ort. and or tht bcginning: thc real issuc is not c)(hrusted

by stnritrS !l rs an um. bul bv car.'-rng tl out. nor is lhc rcsull lhc dclual

*:hole. bul rrlhcr thc rcNll rcScrhcr with lhc Proccss lhrough whtch il

crnu lbout (PS: 2) Thus. as manv comntntarors hlve compl rncd'

llcScl $clns lo sel out ile|bcrslcly to makc the prchmrnarics lo lh'

I'henonhltuloer hard lo undcrsl nd unlil one has bticn lhrculh lhc

sork as ! trhole. so lhut lhcy arc more suitably reld t thc cnd rrlher

thln at lhc outset: thrs sltm! plrlicularlv truc of thc Prcfacc $hich

only camc |o b( wrirlcn afler lhc *o'k wat complctc so lhnt rl st^€s

nrorc as r cdh to thc ler(t (or pcrhaps clen 1o Ilcgcl s ennre systcm)

lhrn !s r prcamblc. lAs HeScl rcmarked rllher rupcrerliouslv Th'

usurl rortll roid In fhrlosoph) is to rc frclic$ Jnd bok rc\''ws'

In otuier r( ) 8cr aD l lPn)\ imrlc idcr ol lhrn8s (A\ l : ' l ) This is ! shor l -

.u l h l j sccnr\ dctcrnrncd k ' dent_ u\ . )

\onLthcl.\'. rhotrgh lh. Pr.li.! dd.s nor !r\t muth 'sa)"

conctmrnS

lh. conlcnr ot rhe /'rrr,,,1,r'l"tr . !nd ts 'fnrnrl)

llr liom trlnsprrcnl

. rnd ln l ly c\nIcn. r l rs ni l l htghlv rc lc\ml lo l lcScl s nr! 'n thcme'

whreh rr thrr $. nnrr lrltslv rutson rn our con'cplion of lho world'

rnd lunhcr thrr rl,){'lht ar r spetulrlr\c s'rcncc (an hclp r'rson

l ind thNt sr t rstdclronr " lhc l ruc shape in whrch lnr lh cxtsts c n only

bc lhe scrcnlr l ie s lncnr ol su(h l ru lh l i r hcl f br in! phi losophv cbser

30

1AE PHENOMENOLOGY IN COI' ITIXT

5 the tofm of Science to the goal wher€ it can lay asldc the title rr^?

i*" .*"r : -a

* *" / tno$rng thar ' '

*n"t '

1 ' " ' " '6r

mv' t l l

I l":ittil, Much ofthe Prerac' rs rhererorc talcn un qirh pol'mr-

ifri". "g"'*i

r". -".'p"raric\

sho rH€selt€liev€st hate tailcd ro

6i"i.'*i" r'. *" *t t. do erther becrusc thev ha\e hcld that s'ri''

8 ro" *" *,t be attarncd b) ahan'lonrng rca$n In fa\our oi fnirh'

Jil""* tt'.i r'"* ';htcn

rhc trnd of world-\iew 'n which rrue

btcllectual \llrifaclton can be tound "wnh tlod ro thc fiBl groul he launchcs a scarhrnts arlrck on

thost who argiue rhat conscrousntss must *cI rmmcLlrlt a$uruness

til" i'"."'"" "-*-

rhoulhr rlroserhcr' rr 'r N ro reel ar homc

;;;-;;;r,j, ,^"'" c'ttcs ot nh'rosoPhv tsuch rs r- H r ob'

i i roi r*ru,, br"r . i , Ior undcr rnins f t ' rmer (<drinr i ( \ rhroulh i ' "

1"....''" ',i"."^- "' "hr(h rt mu\r nu$ mrte amcnd\ b! comm'r-

; ; i l ; i , ; ; ; i : " ' , , ' " ' "h(r thun

' !n ' isht tPs 5r ' rrcset

's 'cdmrlr

l i i 'n, ' ' * ' . , . t , ,n r . tc d rn(rLl) err-phrlu{ofhr iJ l m)srrcrsm

Thc bcnuliful'. lhe 'hol) the 'clcmal religion and kr!e'

"..ltr'" i^u

-,i,1'"'l t"

''lusc rhc dcsir' to bilcr nor the Norron'

i"r "".o",v,

*)l tr'" '"rA "rnrch

o{ ncecssir) in lhc thing nscll

iut ,r," i"r-*t of cnthuri!:m thcs' rrc sullosLd to hc whll

sunlins and contrnuallr- c\tcnds lh' $'rlrh ol subslirncc

iuctr ninds. whcn rhcv gi \ t rhenrscl \ ' \ up ro r lE unconrrol l 'd

i" , .*" t " t t ,n" niv incl sub"r in 'c rn ginc lhnr ' bv drx$iu8 I

'"ii ,"* *rt.."*'"i'*-e* and {rrcnd'rrns untlcrstundrns

*"t i " .* ," * . n" ' -"U "1 ( iod ro \rhom l lc rncs $rsdon' In

,f""p, ,|(l f,.,." *ft" tft"l. rrr ircl rctcrvc rtrd hring l() hidh in

lherr r t r .n. is n.rhrng bur ( f i , ixms ips ! ol

llegcl dech.cs lh'rl thonklirlly the pcrrcd ol such rrranonrrrsm

ft . n",r"i. ""a

tr'"t "^

is ! hinh timc and a pcriol of$snsrrron to

i".* ".

,r's, ur. tl('werer. hc also sratcs thar *h!n rttrsr rppclrs

"" ii" t"""". ,r'r'

"""*-"a comnrrtmenr ro reason rs 11 $ed bv o ccna'n

i" i " i r . .* ' i ' . - , ' """ 3: rh ' | ' n '$ wu) or rh 'nr 'nF F no more l

".-i'"i"1.*t"t rhJn N a nc$-hom (hrld rr rs 6iLnrral ro bcdr rhF

-- -1". i r r . ' - -

"" tr ' " 'Len( l ' r rhc tnsr rrmc In rr ' rmmRrracv or

: i l . : ; , . ' ; ' " i : "" . "

t "cn'$n'rr u $orrd.rsp'nr ' ' ' nor idmnrct(

------""" a

IH' PHENOMENOLOGY IN CONTEXT

io ils bcsinning\' (PS: 7). The res'rh of such immarunry. Heg€t s,r\\.will be thar ir is clarmcd rhal mrionat insiShr is srid ro be .rhe es|cnlpossessaon of a lcw individuals . whereas in facl (as rhe pr.,,,u.z.r)g' is Inrcndcd lo show) [rlhe inlc jgibl€ form ot Sciencc isthe way open and cqually accessible to everyonc. (pS: 7). Moreovcr.In lhc eldy stagcsofirs developmcnr ftispmgmmme ha5 takcn I shap.ihat hls nrade rt an casy ra.ger for irs c.irics. as ir has soughl ro salisl\rcrsd| wrlh r 'mo ({hromatic ibnnatism' in which phitosophy r.rcsk, Fin down rhc hcwildcrinS varicly of phenomen! ;n a tbw simptfschcnra. and hcncc cnds up dcclaring thar .att is onc . HeSet states thrrwe aru nght to he di\satistjed wirh rhis ourcomc. and lo be succcsstulphrk,$phy must pn\ide us wilh n dccp$ fom ofrarronal insighr lhrnrh's: -li pit rhi\ srnSlc insrghr. thnt in rhe Absotutc clcryrhin8 is rhesnmc, aSarnsr rhc lirll bodv ol articutated co8nhbn. which d lclsrsccks and denunds such fulfillmcnl. is ro palm oti its Absoture rs rhenr8ht

'n which. !s ihc srying gocs. att cows are btack this js rogni

||on nailely reduc.d to lacuiry (PS: 9). Itowelcr. rhhouSh he acccpl\lhal some ol lhe contcmF)rnry cnlcs of phitosophy hllc a fr)inr rnallackinS the philosoph;cal scienc.s in their curcnr slirtc, hc noncthc-lcss rnsisrs thlt this is because in rhis slale th.y arc nor p.opcrt!dclcloped. aDd rhat iirnher philosophicat progress $i sho$ rhdr $rchaltu.ks are prcmdturc: Scicnc. in jts clrly stagcs. whcn it has arrrincdnerrhcr ro complrrcncss oldcrail Dor pcrfccrion of tbrnr. is vutorrublck) cntrcrsm Bul i r $oukl be as unjust for such cnrrc ism lo nntc r lth. lcry h.an ol scicnce. as rl is unrcn bte n, r.tirse ro honour lh.dcn'rnd l i ) . i rs I r .e. scicrce s l Iunh$ dctetopnrcnr.(pS: 8).

'Ihir !.(lkD ol lhc PR'litec. rnd r I.l$ orc of th!, srmc krfj.t l 's l ' ) . l l ) . I r t ( l . r r l \ d.r !n. t l r , , r t .n r l t rer( t ( r n, rhe t - t r t rh. , rl l ( ! { l \ n. \ r r rLnr r \ r . r k, hr r t ,8tr{( l $Lrtr sfh( rnu.r ( tcnrrrrtht lo$ph! r d t ls rs\oerrrcd thr t iN,th) or nrt l r . . Rrthe.. shrt(l lcgcl r (knosledScr S.hel lng s Inr tonrDcc !s ! pronccr ur grt , inS.onrcnrporrrr" plll\(|Ph! I rcncsc(l Inl(ttceluxt opllrnrsm and rcspcell ( t r rcn\on. hc ! ln, n lxrnl t $rshcs k i $xn hs rc. .h rhat such opl l -nrsnr eannot lnd rh tirllilncor r rh. sor\ ol Schelting nnd h,shlk!$crs. l i l r r l rhoulh Schcl l t rU l l .s lo r lod rrar ionalsm, hisconectlrdn rs l(r) li,nnul ic lnd cnrpry lo nrdkc rhc wo.ld prop.rtycomprchcnrbb r() us. lt rca$n is k) tind saristlctrdn. cgclargucs. ir

32

whaleler is morc than such a word. €ven lhe transition to a mcreproposition. contains a ,ld)rrirt,_orrcl lhal has lo belakcn back.

or is ! mcdirlion. But ir is jusl lhis that is rcjccted with horro..

as ifabsolutc cognirion wcrc simply sunendered whcn mor€ is

madc of mcdiation than in simply sayang lhal it is nothing

absolure. and is complelcly absent from lhc AbsoluteBut this abhonencc in fdct stems lionr iSnorancc ol thc

nature of nrcdialion. and ofobsolute cognition itsclf. Rcason

is. $ercli{c, misunderstood whcn renccrrcn iscxcluded from thc

T.uc, rnd ts nol gmspcd aJ r posnive nNmcnl of$e Absolulc(PSr l l l2)

ll.8el diagnosrs schclling s misrukc here rs bascd on a desirc lbr il

brm ofif,lellcclual suiisfaclion lhal is hlisslully unrsare oflhc prob_

lans faced bv ordrnary finile und.rstandin8. m(xjcllcd on lhe ltli'ol

God and drlr nc cogn'r ion I q hc.c I th.t lile rs Indeed otu of unlrou-

blcd cqulity ond unily \ith tlsclt: lbr which othcmcss lnd alicn tron.

|nd lhe overconr inB ofal ienal ion. r rc nol serknrs nr l lcrs (PS l ( l ) :bul

H.gcl argues lhrt lhis rs a mishkc. lor lhe d;vinL inlcllccl musl hc rblc

to wo.t( thrcu8h thcse problcms rl {tljh 'nlcll.clurl

sntrsli.tknr rs oljusi k) *( trrs'prd ror thik'{opht r,J \u.cccd rs n( cdrli.rrxrn l{t

Eoson proper ly lo,rns$cr r ts rrrr t r t r r Ist crr t te\ . l iegcl .hrnrs rvc musl

nole f rom lhc ldcnl i ly phr lo$'pht ol Sehcl l r F k ' lhc proper lv di t ! lcc '

t icaloul look ol hrs o$n snccuhlr !c svstcmi rr rhrs wry. l icgcl scr/cd

lhc torch ofpi(trcssrtc rhntnu lionr hrs lircnd rnd lbnner collcrSuc.

Nnd hcgan. nl i hcxr cci lb. l$o lhxl \n\ n. \cr l l ) h.xr '

In rhrs se. t ! ,n ol rh. Prcl i .c. l lcgel .onr$ out $, th vtnt o l hts

mosl noktr(,Lrsly durL styins". nrmely lhll clcrylhing turns on

grosFinS and exnrcssing thc liue, nol only s ,!il'r/0n... but cqu lly

!sSrr / t r r ' ( l 'S: l l ) ) . dnd rhar ' I Ic l ruc is thc wholc {PS: l l ) As

llcscl hrmsclf pinls our IPS: qr. rl is onlv drotr8h lhc elpositknr of

thc sysrem it$ll_ lh{t he txn f()pcrly Jusrrl-v thcsc claims. or clcn

Endcr them tully inlclltgiblci bul lhc l)ct lhat lhcy come rn lhc couNe

of his skimish wi lh SchLl l inF {or perhaps. rs l lcgcl h imscl l x lways

in!'isled. with sehcllinS s lcss irhle li'llowcrs) rirkcs ibem $tnrcwhtrl

- lAE PHENOMENOLOGf IN CONTEXI

3,t

- rI 11' PHENOMENOLOCf I I I CONIEXI

4sier to interpr(:|. tbr. as we have seen, ir is clear rhat what rroubtedHcgcl ahout SchcllinS s rppmach \ras ils tcndency rowards monisnr.thal is, to rhe !icw rhar'all is one (PS: 9). tn claimjng, rher€for€. thNr'the Truc is nor only substadce. bur also subjccr. Heget may b€ rakcn!s rcjcctang this monisrac position. on rhe grounds thar jr cottaps€s rhesubJccft)bject disrincrion. whereas (in H€g€l s view) rh€ subjccr canbe holh distinguishcd from the world dr./ find iisclf in ir: .Thrs

Subrtnnc. rs. ,rs SubJ(r, pure rint,/" ,?8/rn,n., md is for rhis lenr(r \ thc hrr ' r , r r . , rNn ! ' f rhc !mpt( : i r rs rhc doubtrng $hrch tcr \ u lopposition. rnd rhcll again lhe neSalion ofthis indjfttrenl diversity andof ils mlrthcsrs llhe immcdiale simplicityl. Chty this setf-rdrr,),trasnmcncss. or rhir rcflecln)n in olhcmcss wirhin irsetf nor an dfraindlor txnrlt.'., Lrnity !s sueh is lhc True (PS: l0). In dectarinS rhar'Thc truc is thr wholc (PS: II). lteSet rhus assiar$ himsel wirhholism .s agarn$ monismi lbr whrle he rejccls akrmrsm or ndicaldualism. he is h ppy lo aceep|idenriry-jn-diflcrence , whereas {in h;sview) ihc Schcllif,8ian takcs realny to b. fundamentj y setf,idcntjclland lacking in differenliation. ltcget calls :hrir lhe subjccr rharcmbodies this relaiion ofidcntily-in-ditl€rence ro the wortd, by tindrngilselfin its 'othca. so thdr while ir is nor cut oll from rhc wortd (radicaldualism,, n is nol indisrinfuishablc tiom rr crrhcr(monism): .Thc spiFitual akrnc is rhc a.tualt ir is essence. or thal whrch hns hdng in i^et/.

'r 's rhat which r.,lutc.\ itvll kr n\l anl is .ld(miauta.;t ;s o pr

h.i,tx nd h.u'e.hr.\.lt and in thrs dcrcnnrnarencss. or in rrssel fcrrcrnal i ty, uhides w(hrn i tscl l : In othcr words. n is in ! i . l Inr,// (l,S 1.1). {ll is ! nrafier ot nnnc dispxrc as t,r whclhcr cgclN' \ r l tht h is\o. t r rc schcl l 'n8 $rth monrsf i hcrc. xnd to c lunr rhalS.h. l l , rF s do.rno. ol t r r tct t .ctrnt r r tur tk l r . la ls l h ct rn lo inensrnrt Icr ly hv {rbnrerBr S srbicer In l l r subsl i lcc { t ,S: l , ) : see Inrsicl9el 5i 6 lr r\ r1\o tr.qu.nrll rrtued rhrr e8et himsetf rills k)\hos ho$ rhi \ t l i f , rnnr ot cnrrr \ - rn i ! t i t r (oc. av(,rds c i lhcr inco_hcrcrc. or r rsel t crdin! !p \ nrnr isr , ( ns rhc l losir ion hc is cr i r ic i i / ing:c l Jrrrcs lq)e. Russcl l 11,56 l l I

llc8cl thcr gGt on lo con\dcr !l sonjc tcngth why his diatecrr,cal oLrtknk crnnot bc grnsl'cd by eonscrousncss immrdiarely, rnd sowhy sc crnnol tRrcccd r,' rt d;cclly hkc r shr thm I pistol,. rn lhc$ay rhrr rhe S.hclhngrin \ysrcm .bcgin\ slrlr8hr awlr wirh ubv,tutc

34

IA ' PHENOM'NOLO6Y

lnowledge. and matcs shon work of other slandpoinls by declaringtbi il tales no noticc oflhem {PS: 16). Hcgel herc makes clcar *har

b di3tinctive abour fie fterap€utic natur€ of his approach: conscious-}!s h3s lo s{:e that its own way of undentanding lhc world haslil.{. b€fore i( can grusp the signilicance of Hegcl s way of l@kin8a things: But the lilt of Spirit rs nor rh€ lif€ thar shrinls lrcm ddath.||d ke€ps itself untouched by devastation, but rather th€ life thaladures it and maintains nsclfin it. lt wins irs trurh only whcn. jn uncrdi.membement. ir linds itsell'(PS: 19) llegel thcrcfore contrasls his

Tproach to rhrr adoprcd by history and marhcnralics. where thcooicome ol thcst inquines can be underslood and delendcd withoulping thmugh lny such lathur of the ncgativc lPS: lo)r hc argucslhsl this rs lhc wron8 model lo use for his ibm ol therapculic cnquiry,*h€re here truth thcrefore includes the neSaliv. also. whlt could bccllled fic lt'lse. if rr could b. rcsrrdcd ns somcthins from which oncnight abstracl (PS: 27). As ! conscqurncc, hc rciccrs the mlthemali-c.l method as inapproprirte lar philosophy. obscrvrng in his defenccl'lfrhis commcnr \ounds boastlul or r$olunonary and I anr lar fromdoplrng such a tonc rr should be notc thal currcnt opini(nr itsclfhasdr€ady comc ro !icw the scicntilic .c8inrc hcqxcllhcd by nrnthemat-bs as qld,tc ou-lulhrrttd $rth rts crtlinrrktrr\. dr\r|.ts of thcorcms, its prcoli. trincinlcs. dcduttn|r\. and eonelusnnrsfrom lhcnr ' (PS: 2l l ) . (As l lnr f ls 19r)7 L n l5 l . n . r l rcnrarks. by,curcnt oprnron llctcl prohxblt nrcrn\ Krnr rn(l Jr.obr.ltr{l8rn8 byhis comnrcnr ! t SI- : r i l6 thLrt rhe) h&l . \ fk cd lhc sprno/ in ic zn'

Acor l rn?) as a phi l (^othr.r l nrc lhod )()n lhc olhcr hrDd. hc wamslhal in nj|eong thr 'r|c(lant^ .nd poDlB\il! ol sdcncc se shoukl nolbc lemptcd l,)wards th. rnti-rrtr)nrhslre non{rcrhod ot prc\cntlnicnrand inspirNlidr. or by lh. lrbrlrxriDess ol ptuph.lle ulleruntc. both olwhich .lc\prsc nor otrly scrcntrlie ponlpo$ly- bul screnlrlic t.dcdnrcofal l krnds (PS: :9t .

tlegcl lhcrelbrc claiins lhut h's pruiect puts him b.twccn two.rtrcmes:on lhe onf haltd thc inadequrcy ofconnnohensc (PS:.1.1)

wirh rts habrt of pielure-th inhng (PS: l5). bur on rhe orhcr hand apurely csotcric and nrystical philosophy lhat clnnot hc rniculatcd(whar hc cdlls the uncommon un'lersrlily ol 0 ro.rson who$e ialcnlshrve ben rurncd by indolcncc and rhc concen ol-genrus {PS: :l.l))i

I

35

- tHF PHENOMENALAGY IN CONTEXT

r,uh€r, I{egel says, hrs rs a trulh ripened lo ils properly malured fomrso as to be capable ol beinS the p.openy of all sell--conscious Reason'(PS: 4:l). He thereibre criticizes a philosophy thal rs non-speculativein rh.t il mcrely sets out 1o ovenum common-sense withoul puttinganything in ils placc: such a philosophy mislakenly 'imagines thal byeslablishins rhc void il is always ahead ofany insishl rich in content'(PS: 16). (h lhc other hand, h€ also stresses lhal tsenuine philosoph-ieal lhoughr srll 0lways represenl a challentse to non-philosophical

lb illusrrrlc this. hc focuscs on ftr wry in which the ordinarysuhiccr prcdi.dtc li,m is tcsted by philosophical propositions likc'(n)d is being or 'lhc rctull is the universal . where the p.cdicate isnol bcing alhbured to the subiect in lhe nomll w.y: The phlk!sophical proposilion. since il n a proposition, lcads onc 1() believe lhatthe usual sublecr predicale relalion obtlins. ds well as lhe usual atli'tude towards knowinS. But thc philosophical conlenl desrroys thisattitude and lhis opinion (PS: 39). Thtls, though he does nol doublthat thc pubUc is ripe ro receive lrhe rrulh] (PS: 44). Heacl

'n lhc

Prcface wams the reader not lo be mrsled into acccpljng I non-Ilegcljan \'rew of whal thal lruth is, but also nol 1o cxptct grasprng illo be easy: True lhouShts and scientific insighl lre only lo be wonihrough ihe labour oflhe Notion (PSr 4l)

Likclhc Prel ice, lhe In l ro( luclron has a c lear to l .nr i .d I in lcnl ion. in set-rrnS our n' sllN hotr n!'w rpprcrch is nccded rltcr the litlse stans inpl ik\of lv prrr '1( ' l l .gf l . lnJ l rkc rh. t \ctr(c. rhc In l roducl ion Inales

fhrn sh l l .gf l t . l 'cs l r ) hc thc.onscqucnecs ol l i l lurc: unless phi losoth! (xn n kc good on r ls t (nnrsc r() l i rd rq! t ' in rhc wor ld. t l tcn lbcl i ) rcc\ o l rntr- fhr lon)fhy wr l l rnurnph. htr , r ldrng N rcturn 1o sccplrcr lr r r r l ronxlrrnr. r ( ) l l lhrs eorreir s hleh trnd$shnds how lo bcl i t t lc c lcryrrurh. rn ( ' rdcr ro lum b!el , Ink ' i l$ l l rnd gk)! l o ler r ts o$n undrr-srundi .g, whrch [nows hos to dis!) l !c e\cry lhoughl and always f indrhe sam. b.ir.n Iigo insl.rd ol !nl conrcnl (PS: 52). However.wherc.s in rh. Prcldcc Ilc8el s polcmrc rs rxther narrow ln seeurg thrsirrutionrlirD !s rrisin8 out ol rhc immaNril), rnd empty tormalism'

36

lHE PHENOMENOLOGY

ofthe kind ofphilosophical position occupied by the pos!Kanoans, rnlhe Introduction HeSeltries lodealwilh a more lundam€ntal c hnlltnge,one lhat se€s such irationalisrn as slemming from nolhing more than a

'natural assumption' (PS: 46) conceming rhe method ofphilosoph'calinquiry. Hegel accepts that once lhis'natural assumption' is made. then

lcepticalirrationalism tbllows: he thereforc setsoutto show lhat it is in

fact not tural'at all. and lhal instead il should be treated as an unwar_

Hegel sets out the problemauc assumption at lhc slan of theInlroductionr namely, that before we set out to find reason in the

world. we musr fi.n st€p back and examinc whether our intellectshave the c.pacity for this son of underslandina. where the tbar is lhal

oiheNisc we may lind ourselves embarking on a hopeless project with

no prospecl ol-success. In a passrge lhlt Hegel cites elsewhcrc (FK:

68 9). John l-ocke t-atnously njcommended this procedurc. whichrcquires lhat we 'trke a Suncy ol-our own Uhdcrctandings. examineour own Powers, and see ro whal Things thcy h.cl adapted (Locke

1975: 47)i and llrhoush Hegel cites Locke hcrc, he coLrld equally well

have quorcd lhe ibllowing passage from Dcscides: Now. ro prevcnr

our bcing in a slale ofpernrancnl uncerllinly aboul the powcrs ol lhcmind. and lo prevenl our mcnkl labours being misguided.rndhaphazard. we oughl once in our lllc cnrclirll) lo Inlurre $ to whar

soa ol knowledgc hunrrn rea$n i\ c.p.blc ol Nrlrinin8. belare tle sel

about acqui . ing knowledgc ol th ings in prniculrr ' ( l )cscrr lcs 1985:

30). Now. t lcgcl sces Kanr\ crni . r l p() iccl xs shrr ing cssent ia l ly thc

lame outlook, accoftlrng ro whi.h *c nNsl begrn in phrlosophy by fi.slin lest igal ing lhe scope of our intc l lcctual capaci l res (c l . fK: 69. EL:gl0Z. p. l , r ard FL: i4 lz. p. 66). rnd nl lhough Lockc mry nol halebcen r sceprc or idcrlisl. llegel hokls rlrat Kant in thc cnd qas both.snd rn a way that wis incvrlable grlen his Lockcln shding point. For.

once we.dopl lhis approach. we Incv'l.bly lrelt our lhoughl as an

'instrumcnt or 'medrum with in'buill limitilions. and the idea nltG

rally lriscs lhul oLrr cognilive c.pacilies rtrr./ 6.rBc., us and .erllyi

it then comes lo seem that lhc world as it is in itself is iuccessiblefrom our perspectivc. an elil that we lind wc clnnol remedyno matter how hard wc reflecl on lhe natttre ofthis instrumenr'or'medium (PS: 46 7). thc Kantlan nr.! seck 10 console us here by

11

1X' PHENOMENOLOGf I I { (OXIC Xi

adopting a more relativisric conception of truth. and claim thal thisprovid€s us wilh an ad€qual. goalofinquiryi bul ll€gel is airily disrnis-sive ofsuch inrelleciual bad faith. claiming that we graduslly comero s€e thar this kind of talk which go€s back and fonh only leads to ahazv dislinction betwccn an absolute lrulh and some olher kind oflrulh.and fial words likc absoluic", "cognilion'. elc. pr€suppos€ a ncaningwhich has yet to b€ asceriain€d (PS: 48).

Now. in order to rcbul this appar€ntly incvitabl. slide into scep-trcal jnalionaljsm. Hegcl s aim h€re is ro suggcst that th€r€ is in faclnolhing lhal ohligcs us to adopt thc'natural assumplion that we muslbeSin by '6rst of all lcomingl to an undersranding about cognition'(wh!r could bc cdllrd rhc crnical cpisrem;c merhod ). Of,e argumenrlbr it mighl be rhal ir is properly pr€suppositionless. as it d@s nolassume anylhang aboul our capaciiy lo invcstiaalc rhe world: but.Hegel claims. ihe adoplron oflhis lpproach dGs nol in fact mrke lhccritical epislemic nelhod presuptnsitionlcss. as it srill assumes some-lhing. nMely lhrt wc havc lhc abilily to succ€ssfully 'slep back'andinvestigatc our cognitivc Lapacitics. so. as Hegel puls the poinl in lhcZopr. if ir is clnimed th the limitations of our inlellcl mun bcassessed before we can b€gin inquirina inlo thc truc bcinS ofthings ,lhen presumably b€lbre we can begin itutuirinS into thc limitations ofour inrellecls we musl asscss our capacny for such rnquiry: and thusou. canacity to achicvc ,r!r musl bc rssessed. and so on ad inlin(um.for'the examination ol kno{lcdgr cun only be canied out by an aclof knowl€d8e. ' thus, lhe l im oi lhc cr i l icr l epis lemic theor ist to invcs'l igr te our cogni l ive cdpxci t i .s wi lhout r ls, using lhem and so ' to scck1,) knd$ belbre wc crn kn,,s is nonscnsicrl and dhsurd. as lbsurd,s rhc wisc rcsolulkn ol Seholr\reus. nol l() lcnlure inlo thc wllcrurrr l hc hrd lcrnt .d ro *v ' r ) r ' ( l l l : \ l {1.0 l . { ) . l : tccd *nh this d ' l l i -.ulll. dcla{d.rs ol thc nilrrul xssL'n)ptnrn may ,nsiead claim lhallhcrr p(Ecdurc ts *lrdntcd. bccrxrc othcrutsc wc cannol b€ sure thaiour co8nltrlc licultlcs rrc ut k, lh. t,fi ol rdrling at knowledSc: inlhc / , , rn. l lcgcl \u88e\ts thr t thtr sns Krnl s vr .w: Wc ouaht. eysKont. to bccomc.requuinr!\l *rlh lhc instrumcnl. bcfore we undedakrthe work lt)r shrch rt rs k) tr. cmnk)vcd: for rtthc innrument b€ rnsufli-cient. all our rrouhlc wtll b.: spcnr In vrrn (rbd.). Hegel s argumenlagainsl thrs !ic$ in thc I'r.r,n.rdl./(f rs (r0ighlfoNard: why should

I

I

1H' PI lENOM'NOLOGY I f l (OIITEXT

\r. need any assumnce of lhis sn bcfore bcginnins our inqu'ries?Why shouldn'l we just sra't and ve how far txe 8el'1 ticgel lhus.rcommcn& rhat ralher $an going in for any son ofprcliminary inves-ti8ltion ofour faculiies. 'science . . . g.ts on with rhe work its€lf. . .

and mislrusts this very mistrust (PS: 47).Now, h is imponant to rcmemb€r thrl Hcgel s tarS€t her€ is a

vicw ofthe crilical cpistemic melhod thai sees it as a 'nslural alsump-tion', one thal claims lhal this i.quiry inlo th€ natur€ ofour cognilivecspacities is an obvious and comnonsensical slaning point of anyrcsponsible philosophical endcalour. either because of a convictionthst this way can we suard against grasping chuds of error instcadof the hcaven of trulh' (PS: 46), or because ol a 'fear' of taking&yrhinS for Branted (PS: 47). lt is h,rrdcr to see how llcgel s argu-mcnrs hcrc would tell agarnst olher wrys ol notivating lhc crilicalcpistemic melhod. panicularly lhosc buih tround lhc clllim that therei! zlxi,|? cvidence lhat our cognnive capacnies are hmrled. b$ed onthc apparenl failure ofour inquines In cenain arcas (theololry or neta-physrcs. forexample). CivenlhrsevadenccofourcoSnrrive limitations.it miSht then be sn as sensrbl€ to scc what rt rs aboul our cognnrlecspacities which produc€s lhose limrtrtrons, so thnl *c do nol lry lo

ov€rstep rhcm in a way thar would prolc liutlc\s or mrslcadrng. Tbus.n would scem. the cnlical epislemic mctho(l eoukl ht mot'laled nolby an cprslemic ole.scrupulousness lhlt Scts thrnls ,n rhc wronS ordc.by qucslionrng our capacities beli'rc li h s soughl k) cxcrcisc thcm:mthcr. it could be nrolivnled by a dcsirc lu mrkc ! r.$onablc inlen-rory ol our abilitics flced wilh real c!idcncc o! rl8ir limilcdness. (ln

lems ol Hescl s anrbgy. therclbrc. lhis $tr| ol crilical lhconsl is nollike somconc $ho wants io lclrn ki swrnr qrthoLrl geltrng wel. butinstcad likc someone who ha\in8 nelrly droNncd. h r Sol oul ol lhewalcr (o roflect on how far his s$innn'n8 ubrlilics can be exPected lorake hrm.) lt may seem lhal Ilegel s argumcnts hcrc do nol really dealwirh rhrs way oftakin8 lhe crilrcal eprstcmic mclhod (llthouSh it couldbc said he tacklcs it elsewhere. for cxamplc rn hrs ll|lcl on Kant s

claim fiat rhc problems of metaphysrcll thrnting show rca-son to belimned: ct EL: S$45 52. pp. 72 ti6l.

r rhis stage. howevcr. it is nol cl€ar how much ofa worry lhisshould be ro the Hegelian. lbr herc Hegcl is liEusins on how a 'naluEl

39

lAE PHENOMENOLOGY IN CON'EXT

assumption about philosophical inquiry dr r!., can lead to sceptical

irationalism. a.d lhc clairn that proper mcthodology rcqunes lhat we

should rrarl wilh lhe crilical ePistcmic methodi he ts nor concemed al

this poinl to rulc out lhe possibiUty that once w€ 8el on with the busi-

ness of lrying lo unde6land the world, we may lind that we encounrer

certain inrractable difficulties which make it apparent that tle.e ec

panicular cognitile limitrtions we must acccpt. // ihis happens (and

rs sc hiile alreldy secn. lbr Hegel it is a vcry bis ii'). then Procecdinsas lhc cniical cpislemic lheorist suSSesls may be sensible. Thus. whjle

rhis point mxy undermrne lhe in.ce of his polemic he.e as a critique

ol Kanl .nd perhaps olhers (if il can be shown thal they adopted the

crirical cpislemic melhod lbr the reasons.iust 8ivcn. and not tbr the

rcasons llegel c.iticizct. this strll does not undermine his centralphitosophical poinl. thlt lhere rs liftle .eason to adopl the crilical thco_

.isr's approach as a nalural assumplion al the outset. zrirr lophilosophicrl inguiryi and il is only if it is a naluml assumplion thar

il is valuablc ro the sceptic s case. as only then would it scem to showthat doubts aboul our capacity for knowledge arise asbegin ro seek such knowledge. so ihai it is somehow self-defeatinS1o scek lo know reality. \\hd is significant. thereibre, is that Hcgcl

undermrnes the stalus of the critical epislcmic melhod as a natural

assumplion . cven ifsome of its Proponents (such as Kanl) could ha',e

had other. philosophically mo.c substanli!e. .easons for adopling ilNonclheless, Hegel arSues thirl il would be d mistake to lake the

hi lurc of the cr i l ical lhco. in 's 'natu.al assumpl ion to show tbat we

crn iusl be sure thal ou. lies ol the world is thc conecl one. or lh.l

$c cri prlc..d with $hilevcr presupposrtx)ns we like. The diflicuhy

rs rtrrr drllcrcnl conccplrons ot thc *orld mry thke diilcrcnt inquirers

r\ rn ld. \o thxl unlcs\ st . rn show $hy one conccpt ion is lo bepfulctrcd to thc othea. w. could not cl in! rhat thal concept'on has r

irSht r() bc rcglnlcd rs lnrc. Ik,scler. it wonld bc wrong lo erpecllhcsc olhcr cdn..ptk)ns 11, conccde dclarl w'lhoul my ffgunrent (as

lhis woul( l hc dognrt ic) : rnd r l would bc w.onl l to at tempt lo ovcr

come such olhcr conccpu,)ns by rssuming lhings about the wo.ld thalthey do ndl Ncccnt (rs lhis would bc qucslion-begging): we musl there-

ibre altcnrpl kr show that lhesc othcr conceplrons are 'nrdcquate,,

/ l?t / , !x / . , , , r . and rrc lhus s. / fundennininS. so lhat in lhe end ' i

lHI PHENOMENOLOGY IN CONT€XT

and when we arrive al a concepiion thl|t is nol inadequate in lhis way,w€ will have reached a conception that h$ establish€d ns lcsitimacyin a non-dogmatic and non-question-begging way. This is what isknown as Hegel's nelhod ot innurent citique: to.stablish that hisconception is rhc one that is b€st able to make us f€€l at home in theworld', Hegelfirst sets oul io show thallh€s€ olher conceptions cannotovercome the problems and puzzles that |rise lbr lhem, so tbai lbeycannot claim ro give us the kind ofrational satisfaction that is required.

Thus. ai a prelininary 1o Ilegel's syslematic position. theP/tcro-nenohg has th€ task of bringing out how each non-dialecticalviewpoint involves some son ofselt-conlradictioni il is thus a way ofdespair' for ordinary consciousness (PS: 49), as rl comes 1(' see rhalits conccplions are inadequate: this palh is the conscious insiSht intothe untrurh of phenomenal knowlcdgc. lo. which the supreme rcal'tyis whnl is in lrulh only lhe unrcalizcd Notion . . . The series ofconfig-urations which consciousncss soes rhrough alonS this .oad is. inreality. rhe detailed hislory oflhe e/!(d/r' ofconsciousncss hselftothe slandpoint of Scicnce (PS: 50). Hegel claims lhat because eachinadequalc slage of consciousness suffcrs lhis liolence at its ownhands' (PS: 5l ). he can peFuade consciousness ro accepr his posioonin a non-dogrnalic and non qucstion-begging way, by showing thtrtconsciousness nroles bwdrds it oi ns own accord. as il sccks tu makegood on rls own intcmal problems. We thffcli)rc do nol nced l,) rssume

anything about the world al the oulsct. or to usc such lssumplrons to

c.iticize consciousness: rather. Iclrnrsc()u$css pro! es its own crrle

rjon fiom within itsell_ by which its rdcqurly cnn be iudged. so lhrllhc in!cnigntron beconres a comprn$,n ol- con sciousress with itscll'(PS: 53). Thus. Hegcl l lnmusly dcchrcs. srncc whrr coDsciousnessexamines rs rts own scll Nll lhll rs lelt li)r us 1o do is sinply lo lookon (PSr 5,r) . conscbusness wi l l lnrd r tsel f in rhc posir ion ol sccingthal how ir look things lo bc rs somehos incohcrent, and so will be

forced lo rclisc its outlook accordingly. until ullimatel) a conceplbnis relchcd where il ir able 1o scc how to ftce ilself lioin lhcsc prob'

lcms, at ehich point knowlcd8c no lonser needs ro 80 bclond itsell:wh€re knosledge finds rtscll whcre Nolion conesponds lo object andobjecr to Not ion (PS: 5l) l loweler, whi le consciousness * i l l moleforward immanenlly in lhis $!), without our hnving 1(, nrotilare or

- lAE PHENOMENOLAGY

irnpel i1 i-.om lhc outsidc, whlt wjll not be apparenl tois hos exactly ils ncu wly oflooking at thin8s is relalcd lo ils previous

conception. and hor this new conception has com€ about. As wehavc discussed. li'r llegel ihis sort ofshift involves a revision itr ho$consci(rusncss lhinks aboui the wo.ld: bul. in the Phenoncnol.rgt',!llhough conserou$rcss undcr8ocs these shiils. it is nol aware thal thisis the dri!1ng mcchrni\N bchind then. so lhat here the oriSinatbn ollhc nes obiccl .. prcscnts itsell l(' co.sciousncss withoul its undeFnrnding hos this hxppcns. shleh prc..cds Lr us. as n were. behindthc bxek ot eonscrounre\\' (PS: 56). Io consciousntss. il appeam thllits undcAl!nding (n the $orld d.!.bts bccause lhe world has revellcdi tscl l l ( ) r r rn i new walr hul lo us. !s phenomenologicalobsencrs. r lrs clcrr thrr thrs hxs only ilppcncd bccause corsciousncss has changedrts $uv ol lhinking xbout lhe $orld, so that lhes. cognilive shilts doot comc lboul br" chrnce rnd exlemally . but th(Ngh I r.,.^a/,t

ih.t (l'S: 55). as rt moles iiom onc conceplron toanothcr by queslionrng sonre assumptions and trking on othem. ()nly

al the end oi-itstourney is consci(Nsncss ready io understand whal hrshappcned ro ( and why: il is thcn nble lo thrnk reflectively lnd sell_consciously aboul thc cxlcgoricll shllls lhal hale lcd it foNard liomone problem.tic position 1o the nert. lo the poirt dt which it gels ridol rhe semblancc of berns bLr ened with somclhing llien lPS: 56).Nnd can rl hn lecl nt honre in lhc wodd. Bciorc such homeconrinS rspossible. hoserer. we musl ib lbw l legcl !s ( l rke I )anle s Virgi l )hc gurdc\ ur rhrough rh. iourncy ol the Soul. so that il InNy punli

r t \c l l tur rhe l i r i 'o l lhc Sf i r i l . rnd rchrcle l inal ly. lhrculh a complclcdc\ncncr. . o l i tsc l l : lhc !$arencs\ . r 'whrt i t Rr l lv is in i tsel l -( l 's . le)

sense-(ertainty

The Iirsl chapter ofthe Prlr,r'"rdl.Af. on Conscursness. opens wilh a seclion on 'Scnsc-Cerlainly: Or thc"Th is" and "Meanirg . Al lhc mosl gencrxl lcvcl .con!mentakm arc !8rccd Nborn ho{ llcgcl iotcn(lcd us k)conccive of scnse-ccnlllnty. nlmely. as liJnn di eonsciousness thal th inks rhe hesl wr! k,Sxin kDowlcdSc olthe wor ld i$ to ei(per iencc i l drrc. l l ] - or in lu i l i \ c ly. wi th-out applling concepls l(J il: whrt Ilcscl crlls nxnqlf_

4l9-ruther than nrcdirlcd knoqlcdSe. $hrch Invol!.'s'a lprch.nsion rr lhcr lhrn i , , rprehension (PS: 58)l l isc led.thl l l lcgel th inks th! l rhrs rr lhc nhsrelcmcn'lary Nnd iundrmcntal !!ay se hale ol drinkurg abouthow the ind relabs lo the world. which is why hebegins rhe P/i(,,d!r,/./K1 h.rc. At lhc srmc time.Hegel srshes lo hrina oul how sensc-ccnlrnty gatn\ rlsattncriveness by trading on I comnlitmenr lhal appears

t l .u. ib l ( . Dul $hr(h tums, 'u l r , , h( 1rF'r l ) t rohlemsrrc.and oncc this is rccogniled ouraltachmentto sense ccrLlrinty as a par3digrn ol knowledSc will bc bsl.

Chapt€r 2

The dialect icof the object

lPhenomenology,A. Consciousness)

\,

THE DIALECIIC OT IHE OBIECT IHE OIALFCTIC OF IHE OBJECT

!s a whole. according to wh;ch rhe Phenomenotog rakes us through a&ries ofinadequate standpoinrs which rcveal how our handling ofthecaiegories ofindividual and universal is one-sided. As we shall see.rsw€ proceed through rhe .emaining chapters ofConsciousness, rhroughP€rceplion and into [b.ce and rhe UndersrandinS. Hegel trjes to showliat conscrousness inpove.ished conceplion ofthes€ rwo categoriesconsislently leads il into difficulries. rhereby bringints out th€ diatecti-cal lmitalions in its thinking.

Hegel emphasizcs that tbr sense-cenainty jl is the indilidudtiryofthe object thar is tlken ro be onrolog;catty fundlmenlal: as h€ pulsrl lowards lhe end ofthe secrion, sense-cerrainty holds rhal .rhe exis-r.nce oI crterndl objecls. which can be more precisety defined asactuul, absolltaly linEulut,

"hoU,- pcrsondl. rr./r'nftrdl things, each

ofthem absolutely unUkc lnything clse has .absoture cerrdnly andlruth {PS: 66). The aim ol lhis scclion js thcn to bnng out howsense-cenarnty s aconccptual view ol knosledge appears nltural to|t b€cause ilconceives.l indiliduality rn rhis way. as something anobFc' hds t t jq_r l" unrt( 'u l i r r an{ prf l rcutdnr} . b} \ t -osrnd hu$lhs con,Lpr ion is f rubl(maUc. ronsciuL\nes\ (umr\ ro \e< hu$ rhr\vi€w ofknowledge is mistaken. lnd thrr ils eprstcmic paradigm is ilt-

Se.se-cenainl] adopls its lconcetrudt \ic$ ol- knowledgebecause l t lh inks lh. t r t wi l l grdst $hr l consr i t r rc\ thc uniquc esscnccof lhe lh ing rs an indi ! idur l only i l i t docs not ! \c eon.cprs in knowingthal indiv idual l lbr (sensc .cnr i r ! holds) e,nccpls can he ppt jcd tomany diftirent lhings. and s{' ernnor rL'it n\ rbout rhe thing qud indi-!idu.l. This uniquc natu.e bel(nrging (' crch cntitv is lr{ditiona ycnl lcd haecci l rs or ' thrsness. In so t i r rs i l has thrs unique nalurc.rhc iDdi ! idual is . la imed lo b. l r reducrblc ro any sh!re.ble qual i r icsand $ is said to be ontohSicall) pri(tr to any such qualnies. in bcingwhal il is in a wiy rh.l is wholl)- unlike anyrhjng elset it rhoretbreuppcrrs lo sensc-ccnarnty thlt rr c.n be grrspcd by rhc sub.ject or Idircclly. withoul rny conceplull lcrIit] bcing requircd:

Consciousness. fo. its pan, is in lhis cenainry only as a pure .t.i

or I am in it only as a purc This . and rhe obiecr simjta.ly ontyas a pure This . I. /rr.r pafticular I..m cenarn of/rir panicutar

What is the deceplively plausible commihenl underlying sensecenainty'l Ar this poinr. there is disagrecment among comm€ntalo.s.For some inieryreteK. the motivation behind sense-cenainty is ncommirment to epistemic foundationalism. which posits d;ecl intui-live experience as siving us the kind of unshakeabl€ hook-up to theworld on which knowledge is builti for othc.s, il is a commihenl toempiricism, according lo which i.tuitive knowledge is priorto conceptuil knowledgc. because empi.icdl concepls are leamed and ger thcirnrLrnrnE h) h(,n! hnked ro obi( ls as lhc) rre gi t (n in e\ I lcr i (n ' t .ind for yer othe6, il is i commirment io realism. which holds thatil rhr' mind is not lo dislod or create the world. il nceds to be in aposirion to gain lccess 1() the wo.ld in a passilc mMner withoullhc medillion of conceprual activily. so lhe kind of direcl exPericncc cnvisaged by sense'certainty must be fundamenlal Thus. somccommcnlarors lake Hegel s principll llrget in lhis chapter to bc cpistcmic foundationalism (ct devries 19884: 105)r olhers lakc it to beconcepr empi.icism (ci K. R Westphal 2000r N5)i and olhers take xto be real ism (cl Crais 1987: 205 l9) .

Now, llcgcl certainly associares all thcsc r(itudes wilh sense'ccdainty in his preliminary chardctcrizrlion ofil. saying rhat

'l claims

iobrthc rn16r 'and / / re i r ' fomof knowledge in so taras ' l

in lo l lcsnerel)' reaching oul to th inSs. wilhoul om llting anylh i!r8 t_rcm thcm(PS: 58) Howeve., it is i.gurble that allhougb the outlook ofsense-cenainry is indccd foundalio alisl. emt;icist. and rcdlin. lherc is a teldccpcr lsrmtrion hcre thal is really llcgcl's morc l-undarnental.onecnr. lhis is thr rssonrtlion that bccrusc il docs nol use concepls.\ .nsc-ccnrrnly i \ rn r posiron log. !sp ! th iDg as d, n l r r t l4 l / . wi lhoulrn\ rhsl , r ( r (D l ionr r ts rniquc stcci l ic i l l o. pure pnnicul . r i l ) . rnd lhr t, r i \o do,ng : tn{L ' . .n.r f l } Sr\cs us lhe nr)sr ,nrponNtrt k ind of know-l(dFe. $hr.h rs ol lhrngs i r \ concrclc. s lngulrr .n l r l icsr for lh is rcasonscn{.errxrrr} pnon|/es rh. onc-tonnr. rchr(nr ofdirccl erper ienceo!.r lhc gcncrr | | l ) r , r ( l lhslrrelDtss ol lhoughl . rnd sr t rer ls appre'h. f \ur r \ nn,ru l i ,nd! t rNl t l l lh.n .omprehcnson. (An account ofscnse-ccrhinry rl,rngllrcsc linescnn bc liund rn lhe writings of HeSel'sexi \ ledr i i Is l . r i t i .s . i rom Ludwig Fcucrbach onwards: sec Dc Nys1978 lnr d iscussion rnd l i rdher rc lerenccs.) This rcrdinS of thc chapleron scns. .cnrinry llrs in sirh thrt olfered abo!. oflhc Phlnonwl'loqr

45

THE DIATTCTI( OF THE OTJECI

rhidg. nol b.caus€ I, qra consciousn€ss, in tnowing it havcdev€lopcd nys€lf or ihoudt about it in \€rious ways; md als('nol b€caus€ rrr rrira of *hich I rm c.rtain, in vinue ofa hoslof distinct qualities, would b€ in i|s owD s.lf. rich complci ofconnections, or relalcd in vsriou! wrys to othcr things. Ncirherofthes€ has anyrhinS !o do with thc tiuth ofs€ns€-ccrointy: hercneirher I nor the lhing has th. signifclnce of a complcx pro.essof medrationr rhe 'l' does not have ihc significanc€ of a mani-fold imsgininS or thintinSr nor do€s the 'thing' signiry some-lhing that hai a hosl ofqualities. On lhe cont|ary, lhe lhing iJ,and it !.{. mercly b€cause il ir. lt nt this is the €ss€ntbl poinr forsensc-knowledge, and lhis p'rr€ 6ei"s, or this simple immediacy.consrftutes its rzrr. Similarly, c€rlainly as

^ conn4tion is an

ttnzs./i/rc purc conncclion: consciousness is '/', nothing morc.a pure This i lhe sinSular consciousness knows a pur€ This .or lhe singh nem.

{PS: 5t i 9 l

In so fsr as sense-lcrtainty maintains thar lhc being of thc objcct isconsrituted by its unque Indrvrdualrr) In thrs way. s€n$-ccnarnty naru.rdlly also holds that knowl€dge needs lo b€ aconceptual. and lhat suchkno*ledge is rhe ''ilhest'

^nd'tuesf : for (il holds) if we bring in

concepls, we bnng in Sencral terms lhal can only lak€ us away f.onrknowing the objecr in irs singulanty (ct EL: gll3. p. 62. 'Empiricisnr. . . leaves thoughl no powers excepl flbstrnclion and formal universalily and idcntity. ). \\hat Hcgel stts out k) show. howcler. is lhrl'in rhe cveni. rhis vcry ../ruiri provcs irsclf k, bc lhc mos( nbsrrrcti rnd ooorcsl r r r l r ' (PS: 58 ) .

No{. as Hcfcl poinis oLrt, sensc'ccrtrin$ l,tccs u dillicult}n.riShl !wry. rs it rr hrrd lo scc ho$ scnsr-ecnainly can claim lo bcrwnrc ol nothinS but rhe object lx'iine it as srngular rndividual. whenit is also aw!r. ol ilsclf ns a s bjecl havins this cxpcdence ofthcobjeci: mong thc counrlcss dillircnccs croppinB up here wc iind inevcry casc lhut thc crucial one is thal. in s€nsc-cenainty. pure brinSat oncc solils up inlo whal we havecalled the lwo"Thises", one"This''as "l". and lhe olher"This !s object {PS:59). Al lhis stage, howelef.se.se-cc.tainty claims rhat ahhough consciousness is awarc ofilselfas

'HC DIAL'CTIC O' TI IE OB'ECT

I subjcct, the objcct is indcp€ndcnt of il, so thst lhe obj.ct is slill a

rclf-subsisr.nt and singular individual that cen be known immedisl€ly:

'But thc objecl ir: il is whal is ru., or il is th. css€nc€. h is rcSsrd_

lcss of whcth€r it b known or noti and it r€mrins' .ven if it is nol

lno\r/q wh€rlas thcE is no knowl.dge iflhe objeri is nol th€rt' (PS:

59). Hrving s.l up lhc basic outlook of sensc_ccrlriDty' Hegel now

bcgrns b probc its coher.nc.. by asting 'whctlcr in scnse-ceflainty

its€lf thc object is in fafl lhe kind of essencc that s€nsc{enainty

proclaims it to b€ (PS: 59).H€g€l s centml stmtcgy against sen*'cenainly is lo argu' thal

whst sens€-cenainty Srasps in exp€nence is nol uniqu€ to lhe indi-

vidual object. so rhal apprehcnsion has no advlnlagc over concepdon

in this regarili $ns€-cenainty thercfore cannol claim that il isjustified

in treatinS ihe individual a. a'this'over and above its shared proper'

ti€s. so thal the epislcmic and metaphysical priorily oflhc individual

is h€rEb) undcnn'ned Hegel b€gtn\ hrs argument bv aling sense-

c.nainty whal its expcrience oflhc ob.jecl tells us aboul it: ll i5' then'

sens€-cenainty ils€tfthat must be asked: 'What is the fr,r'1"' (PS: 59)

Scnse-{ertainty responds by eying lhat for il the object is simply

prtscnl: it exists here-and-now (cl EL: "'il8z'

p 62 'l-rom Emp'nctsm

cam€ thc cry: 'Stop roaming in lmptv abnraclions kccp vour ev€s

opcn, lay hold otr Inan and natur'" !s rhcv arc here b(tbru vou. cnjov

lh€ present momcnl . . tlcncc. this inslincl sLizcd upon lhe prcscnl.

thc Herc. lhc lhN. I l ldsc\(r ' l lcF( l fR"c(.1 ' kr r tHuc lhal

'exisling here'.nd-nos is llr liom un;quc 11) rhc (ftjcct, as diflcrenr

times and places hc hcr. .nd no$ . rnd thus $ can

differef,l thingsr sensc-certrinry hrs lhcrctb.c t:tiled to acquire tnow-

ledge oflhe objcd in rls siugulnr nrditiduatrty. but only ol a proPcnv

rhat can bclong lo mlny individu:rls. and hencc is unive6'l:

in thrs simplicity [No$] is indiffercnr to what haPp€ns i' rri lusl

as littlc as NiSht and Day .lrc ils bein8. jusl as much al$ 's

it

Day and Nightr it is nol in lhe lea$ allccted by this its oiheF

bcinS- A simplc thinS of this kind which r lhrouSh rcganon.

which is neithcr This not That, a ,ot-Ilttl and is with cqual

indifference This as $ell .s That such a thing we clll a

!ri!c.rol. So il is in lact lhc universal that is lhe true lconlenl]

46

rHE Drart( f r ( of rHE oalrcT

ol scnse-certsrnty . . . The same will bc rhe case wirh lhe otherform of'This . with Here'. H€rc' is. e.g.. rhe rre. tf I tummund. rhis truth hls vanished and rs convened into us opposite:'No lrec is herc. bur a housc inslead. .Her€. irself do€s nor\,anishr on thc contrury. n abidcs constant in rhe vanishingoflhehousc. ihc tree. ctc.. and is inditTe.enrly house or tre€. Again.rhereforc. the This shows tself tot. a nediuktt sinpli.,itr. otn u,n\r'tu|,| . lslense,ccnainry has demonsrrared ;n irs owns.ll rhrt thc rrurh ot rrs objcci is thc unive$at.

(PS: 60 l )

Ilc8.l thcr.lbrc r)$ n drlcnrnu ti)r sensc-ccdainty. The fibt optionrs thxt scnsc-ccnrrnll nrry Insisl rhrr lnot\lcdEe ol thc objccr rcquirerlhnl sc 8tusp ih uniquc c\scncc: hul thcn il nrusr altow lhat such know-lcdgc i\ unllt.ln ble hccausc tl tums our thar nolhing we can kno$rbour rhc obj.ct rs uniq$ lo it. rl $c nickJUst to scnsc-cenarnty. Thcsccond option is thrt scnsc-ecnainry mav deny lhat thc object h s anysuch un'que csscncc. in which crs. rhcrc is no rcirson nor lo uscconccpts in scckinS knosledSc. and so no grounds tbr priontrzingsensc-ccnarnly rs an cp'stcnlc posrr()n. HcScl arlicu lilcs lhis ditenm.mosl clcrrly al thc end ol the sccri()n, whcrc he sums up hrs posirionrgarnsr those *ho assen thrt lhc rcrliry or heing ot cxiemut lhingstdken as Thises or sensc{}bjcch h.is absnurl.rrulh f(tr conscn'usncss.IPS: 65) l

l l rhcy aciuul ly srntcd ro ! r ' lh is hn of pr l )cr whrch lhcynrcan, r l thcy $irnrcd lo v, i . rhen this is inpossjble, becuuscth. \cn\uous Thr\ rhi[ rs trrcxnr {trr!]r /,.,.dr'lkt/ by tangunge.$l '1.h bel 'nrSs I(r (on\cuarf \ \ , I e I ' , lhr l *hreh rs i rh l r fnr l )unr\Lrs,r l In lhc r . t |1.1l ! l l .nrF n, \ i rv i l . r r wdutd lhcrulbrcerunbl t r$x\ . rho\L \ ho \ rxned ro dL.(hbc i r {outd nor h( rbt .r , ' e,)nr l i lcr f rhc dc\(nl i t ron. br l soutr tbc conrp{t tcd io tcrvc i ll , ' o lhcrs. $ho { , r r ld rhrnr\ctves l inr t ty hrv. ro adnr j l k)\l1cx||ng rt!trrt (trr'crhrn! $hrcl r\ r,,/ Thcv cendinly nr!,rm.rhcr. r/r\ hrt ot p.pcr her. $hr.h rs qxrrc dificrcnr fronr rhc bnnrcnlk ed rbovcr but thcv s{y lcl|nl /rirlr'. .rr./rrl orr.4vrrA .r^11r'. -rh$luk,lt \i,tgtl.n .n i.r' and $ on: i.erhev sr\ ol them only whar is !,i,t,!// (-onscqucnrty. whrr is

IHT OIATECIIC Of IHI OBII( I

callcd the unullcnble is nolhing else than the untrue. the iftr-

tion.l. s'hat is me.ely meant lbur is not actuallv express€dl(PSi 66)

Beforc rcachin8 rhis conclusion. ho$evcr. lle8cl allows scnse-

c€nainty to try to rcspond to 'ts

inrlial difficully. offinding ftar 'Now'

and 'Here cannot constilulc the unique individualing nalure it is

lookinS for. as many thing! crn bc Now' and llere . Sen$-ccnarnlv-s

firsl respnse is |o rry and make NotI and tlere a unque chnrac-

lcrisiic ofrris individull. bccause il is lhe only lhing thal 's

cuntnlly

prcsenl in r'r'€xpcricnce qu! subjecl. I{cgcl s rcsPonsc. howelcr' is

!o point oLrl $al o//t.' thrngs lre prcscnl in lhc exp€ri.nce of 'rl'.'r

,ubjects. so lhere is nolhing ur lhis rclalion lo n subjecl thal indi!idu-

rt s the objret a! sueh: I, r/,^ 1". scc lhe lree and asscd that llcrc

r! i| rrcc: bul anolhcr "l" sccs the house md nuinlains lhal Hcrc is

not a lrcc bul a house instcdd. Bolh lruths hilrc lhc sdmc authenllca-

tion, viz. thc nnntdi.rcy ol scLing. and thc cenrinty and lssurance that

both ha!c lbout ihcir knosng: but thc on. trulh lanishcJ rn the othcr

. . . The t is mcrcly unrvcrsr l l ikc Nosi . l lerc . ot Thrs in

g€neral (PS: 6l l ) .In orilcr ki i\oid thi: drtliculrl. sc !c-eerl.rnt) lh.n r\*-nr lhc

uniquc indr! idur l i l ) o l lh. ohrcer i r r cxPcnen. lng hcrc rrd now by

tryingto igno.e rhL e\,srctr(c ol rnt olhcr {reh {rbi((lr. lrnrcs rnd

places: l . r / r \ "1 . rs\ tn then lhc l t . r . - is I r r . t m(l do uol r rnr

round so lhdt lhc llcr. $oul,l brconre li,r nre r,I I rr..: Nlso. I lak'

no not icc ol lhc l iet thr t rn(nhcr " l \cc\ lhc l lcrc rs,r , r l rcc. or

that I m)\c l t r l rnolhtr t ' r r ( r r [c lh( l l . t . r \ ooi- l rcc. lhc No$ .s nol-

day. (h lhc coDlrrr l . I r , r lurc l r ! r o l l In lurrrDg- ( l 'S 6l - l ) lhc

di l l lculry l i ) r terrsc .enxrnl \ ' r l rh is P(tnr. ho$c\cr. rs thr l r l - r l ( tocs

nol aelino$l.dgc (h. c\rtlcrr.r ol ('lhe' plNcs. lrnlc\' {rtrl.cts. n'l

objects. r r ern only gi \c !n osrunr\c ( l$tgnar(n oi $h.r l r i mc! s hy

'No$.I lcrc. l . : rnd Thir ' . by Poi t t ins arrd s lv in8 Now.xndso

onr bul thr\ acr ol pornlrng crn rr I'csr indicatc J Punctual prcsenl

thal is no l(nlger Prc\cnl a\ {xnr as rl rs poinlcd our. Il scnse-certanrlv

tfles to 8d round lhis by lryirg lL ellrnr lhrl Nos is t pluralitv

of momcnts and hcNc crlcnd\ ltnr8 enough lo bc pretcd otrt. and

'Itdrc !s u plurnltl) .l pliccr lrte$r\e. rl hls bccn lbrccd k! rbrndon

48 49

IHE OIAT I CT IC OF THE OSJECI

'ls solipsistic posilion and accepr rhar ihc .Now, can be applied to

many limes and thc llcre lo msny placesr it has lhen faited lo avoidlhc admission th.rt Now and 'Here are universal. and hence areunablc to pknldc the kind of uniquc individuarion ir is k,okins fior(see PS: 64 5).

Scnsc-ccdflinry therefore cnds up unable to make good rh€ kindof oniolosical commilment undcAinnins its conceprion of knowledge:as Mrrcusc hrs pul ir, Scnse-exprricncc has lhus itsctf demonsrmtedlhnt rts rcal cont.nr is nol the panicular but rhe unjvcrsat'{Marcusele55: 106) Ir

^ {'mdimcs allegcd thrr Hegcl is herc nrracking the

tnctaphyscr l t rcs rhat therc arc indi ! rduals al a l l (c l L i iwr lh l9?l :l:10. Hegcl s lnJ*cr ir nbsrrrcl: whar rcmarns is only lhe ..universil'

whrch is indil-lcrcnt lo clerythin8 rhar cxisls here irnd now ): but thissecms mistakcn, !s lll llegel

's crilicilinS is the viet\ rhar rhc indi-

!'.iual qua individrul cdnnot be concrivcd or lhought about. bur ontyupprehcnded. brcause only apprehensnln trunscends wh.rt is univcBaland reachcs thc rndivadual. tlcSel\ argumenr, as we hale seen, is rhatcven apprchcnsion d(xs nol rran$end rhc univeBil. fo. in nmrehcnsror we lrc tusl lwarc of rhc objccr as a .this . which docs notconsritute rhc obtccl s distinctr,lc plni.ularity. bur mrhcr its moslabslract and unilcrsll character Assuming lather lhan dcnying ourcaprcity to 8rasp individuals. Hcgcl thcrcfor. concludcs lhll know,ledge of indir idul ls cannol .equire us to !o bLyond univcrsut i ry in rhc$.v sensc-cenlrnry supposcs. Adoprrn! rhe mcrhod of Innnlncnr(ritique. llcScl hrs ihus brou8hr our how such mcraphvsrat mi$on(cpiions crn hrv. philosophrcal conscqucnces lhal xrc protbundt!{lnodiDg: by diagnosng thesc misconc.frions. Hegct hopcs th r,a\nhctroDrcnologicil ohsc^crs wc sill n,) kDgcr be lcmpl!(l k) riloprrhe

' rc sklcr lcfr(e to loSJ". l scnrc-(cnrrnly As the n.xr sccl i ( 'n on

'Pfre. f t ron ()r th. lh, g rnd l )cerf l |or ' $r l l sho$. howcv.r . whi lcrt{Llt nu! hr\c l..rnt n' rclrct sense-ccnnilt)-. th.

po{rrrn n no{ t r l . ! on tnslcrd \ r l l f ro\c equal ly problcmalc. r \.on\.ro!\nc\\ rcsniRls kr rhc drlli(ultr(s lir..d b) scnsc,c.narntv b\rtlenrpling k, !o bcyonrl il i. an inxdcqurlc sry. silh a conccprir)n o1'r l ' \ iduxl i ry rn( l ur i rcrsr l i ry thr t is s l i l l l in i tcd.

TI]E OIALECTIC OF iH€ OBJECI

Per<eption

Having come to lce thal it cannol coh€rcndy think ofindividualiry intcrns ol \ome son of Lrnique indj!rduatin8 essen(c. consiousnc\\ isnolr ready to conceivc of individuals as bcinS constituted by chamc-Grislics they havc in common with other individuals. and so io Ihinkin lcrms of univcrs.rlity as w€ll as individuality. Ilegel thereforcdescribes the transilion irom Sense-ccrtrinty ro the ibllowing srcttunon Perceplion in thcs tcms: 'lmmediatc ccnainiy does not takc overlhcrrurh. forrr \ ' rurhhrhcuni \eBJl .$hcrcr\ f tndinry$anr i rc l fprchend the This Pcrccplron. on the olhcr hand. rakes whar is prcscnt roil !s a unilcrsdl . . Snr.c thc principlc ol lhc ob.iecl. lhe unrlcr$I. isin ns s,mplicily ,erlidl{,../ univcsrl. lfic objccl must cxpress lhis ilsnaturc ;n us own sclll This il does by showing ilsclf lo bc /r. ?rirgNith Munr r \ t n. i (PS: 67). Howcvcr. bcc use perceptron is str l lat th. letcl of s.nsc-cxpc.icncc. the unirc6als oui ol qhich ii lakcsindr!iduls lo br rorstrturcd ar€ of the implest kind. that is. rhcy ar.!.nsiblc prope.lies, I'kc bcinS whne. cubrcal. tan. and soon. As llcgelm.les clenr al thc cnd ol rhc sccrion. rhis inrroducrion o! r limiicdconceptroo of univcrsllrry will in l-acr lum oul ro bc inldcquntcr 'lhusthe singular beinr ol n:nsc I!i the lelcl ol scllsc-ccnarntyl do.s indrrdvanish in rhc dirk 'ct i ( r1 nro\cmdt ol innnedr l rc ccnainty l | r l l la l lhclc lc l of perccptronl b.con)es uni lcAr[ ly. hnr rr is only r nznrrA!rir, r/t^r (PS: 17) l h. uun ol thF \..trr! rs rhcrelbrc t() hnn8 ourrhat conscrousnes\ g.rs ur,, d'lliculrc|I r onl! conccr\$ ot nrtcr-$als In thcse ltmrtcd t.nns. drr'liculr$ lhxr lcrd ir to losc larrh rn thclcry.nrolog] 'ot rhrrg\ r r ) ( l pn)pcnlcs or $hreh lhrs eon.cplk,n rshdsed. lnd lo lurr l , ' th. mtrc r ldrcr l onrolog) in rbrccs drscusscr l Ilhc Io lk,winS sc.r lof . our ol shi .h o ( l i r icrcnr.onccpr i {n ( ' l u| l r !c.

Al lirsl. bosc!cr. rhc po\irion ofpcl((ptk applars sllisliel(trylnd :lrrightfoN. . r\en .onnnon*rs'erl: conscousnc\\ hcrcconc('i!e5 of oblccts rs cotrrbinatidrs ol scnsihlc propedi.'s. rnd sotrc.r ls crcb rndr l i f i r l l Js a bundlc ol unrvcrs ls, as in AIso:

This rbnrrc l universr l mediunr. which cnn be cl l l€d s imply' lh inghood or 'pxfeess€nce . is nothinS elsc th in whar HcrcnndNow hale prcvcd lhemsel!e! k, bc. !r1. r rinplr, t,gdtr./rrl r ol

I

50 5l

DrarEcirc or THr oartct

a plumfiry: btlt the many att:. ih thei. .lettninutene\t. simpleun iversals lhemselvcs. This sall is a simple Here, drd at thcsametime manifold: ir is whit€ and dfto lan. dfto cubical in shapc. ofn spccific weight, etc. All rhese many prop€rtics are in a singlesimplc 'llcrc', in which. th€refore. they inrcmcnelmte; nonehas a diffcfenr llerc from th€ others, bul each is cverywhere. inlhc srme t{erc in which the oth€rs are. And. at thc same time.wnhdul bcin! scpnralcd by different Heres. thcy do not afTeclcreh otllcr In rhis inlc.pcnctmrion. The whitcncss dcs nolIllcct rhc.ubicrl shaf'c. rnd ncithcr affects rhe tan raste. erc.: onthc .ontmry. sincc cxch is ns('lf { simplc rclalinS of self 1o s€lfit l.rvcs thc olhcrs nk,ne. nnd is conneclcd wnh lhcm only bythe indillirenr Also. this Also is lhus lhe purc univcrsal itsellor the medium. lhe thinghood . which holds thcm togcther in

(PS: 68 9i lranslalion modificd)

Pcrccption thus treats each Ind'lidual as a co-instantiatrotr ol emecoll.rtion of propeny'insrrnecs in a single spatial rcSion. so thal(1or cx,rmplc) lhis piccc ol sali is sccn rs nolhing morc than cxempli-lications ol $hirencss. radncss, rnd so on co-cxistinS logether in one

ll.r!ing introduccd whrr is rraditronally known us a bundlevre\r ' o l the object as an Also. l l .gclnowarSueithal thrsvic$ provesunnahlc. and gives nse lo (s opposrlc. shich takes thc obJcet to b€ a'()nc. lhxl r\. . un'lied strbstrn.c or subslBtu olcr Jnd rt{\e its

THE OIAIE( ' I I ( OT IHF O3]ECT

€ssential to them as negrlion; th€ difTcrcnlraron of the propcFties, in so far as il rs nol an indi{Terenr dillcrentiation bur isexclusive, each propcriy negadng thc oth€rs, lhus thlls oursidcofrhis simple mediumi and lhe medium. lh€refore. is nor mcrelyaD Also. an indillerenl unny, bul a Onc as well. I unity whichd.r./rr./cr an othcr. The One is tll3 monent ol neAutiont it is irs.ltquite simply a relatio,r ot s€lf 10 s€lf and it excludes an otheland it is thar by which 'thinghood' is determincd as a Thing.

(PS: 69)

Uofonunarely, this pass8e is rirher ob$urc and hard ro inlerprel. Oneinieresring reading of il rs

-livcr by Charles Taylor (scc Taylor I9?2

l6E ? I). Hc sugSests rhal llegel is claiminS thrl we can only thrnk ofpmperlies as determinalc by contasting lhenr with othcr p.opcnics.but this notion of nropc.lirs being conlrlstcd with others requires usto think that nothing shrch has one could halc anothcr ('nothrng canbe rcd lnd Sreen all o\ca. nothins can bc square and round . and soon)i but (Taylor sugscslr) of cours€. withoul thc nolion ofa plnic-ularor somerhin8 clo\cl], rc$mblinE a p,nicuhr. such a phmse wouldh. merningless: for n rs only ol paniculars. ol thrngs ihrt can benrprop€nics. that onc c{n sny thll lhcy crnnol hc hoth rcd and green'( ib id. : 170). Thus. on l iy ldr 's vrcw, Hcgcl s mryc l i (nn rhc Alv i lothc ()nc is designcd to sho$ thr l thcrc is r krn( l o l r r rLr lu i i l depcn-d.ncy here. that $e coul(in t l)gi.rllv hrlc our pn,I}en! conccpts ilwe didn l opeBte wi lh I 'Nnrculrr \ ' ( ib id: l6el .

l |o*crcr. lhc dr l l icul tv $rrh rhir rcr( l 'ng rs lhr l r t nrs l !kes thcposilrcn li$nr Nhrch rhL irgrmcnt stJns. rnd {} t-arls as an Inrerprela-til,n. Accordin8 k) lrvhlr. lhc l)o{ron rhm rrcuh lh.lhrng rs rn Also'is sr l rd to hold rh.r ' fntPcnrct . . . lc \ rs l l l longsiLlc c i rch orher rn lhcunr!eAc bul nol hound l ( )Bt i rh$ Inro pan'cuhrs { lb 'd. : 169 70). Au1.on my.lccouni. r,r conecivc ol thc oblccl !s rn Alvt is no! to denythrt il is n prrliculnr. b.cirusc on thc bundlc !icw wc ern sljll concerleof rhc obrecr as ( lor cramplc) -rhis picce oI salr 'J t rs just that thepanicullr objccr is Lr.wc(l as nothrng o!er rnd rholc rhc rnslantratcdunr!ersals thar con\trtutc rt. I rh.rcforc think taybr ts *ronS ro chaFlcrcrizc thc posrlion llcSel stnns liom herc ns onc lhat lacks theconcepl of a panicul r alioSclhcr: il jun concerlcs of plnrcul.rrs rn rccddin $!y ( !s bunJlcs ol rnsunrr l ted uni !crs. | lsr .

r . l ! l rnrdrn $hr.h hr\ thu\ .mcrg.d r t rs otr l ) t f ic chlrr i r r r (n l ro i t i \c uDr\ ! rsr l i l \ lhr t is { t i i rs l obser!e. l dnd( le\c l ( ,PCdi hut r l i r r lh(r s( lc prescnls i tscl l : which musl n lso bc, . r l ( r i f l , . . . r L, i ( . , r r , r r l ' \ ' r . , r rh( m.,n) . l ( r r 'n inr< nn'F(dre\ $cr. \ rncl ly l | r ( i r l lcrr t k, ont rnorhcr. i l thcy wcrc s inrpl)in(lnr|ljl:" \cll-rclrrcd. thc! $ouki not bc dctcmliDrl(.: ldr rheyiru orlv d.r.nnrn.rc rn so l.r !s lhc) ,/,r;,r.?rnt. lhcmscllcslrom onL rnoth.r. and,rtrl. th.nrsclvcs r{) rrr.^ xs to thcrropfosilcs Yct: !s thus otposcd to onc ,norhcr rhcy crnnor bek,S(rher in thc s inrple uniry ol lheir mednrm. $hich is ius ' as

52 53

THE O IAI E CTIC OF THI OSJICI

So, is therc another way ofunder"landing Hegel's position herc?An altematile rcadins can be developcd by comparing the passage weare considerinS lo lhe following paragraph from F. H. aradley sIppedtun.e anl R.oIi^:

we may okc thc l-rmrliar inslincc of a tump ofsugar. This is athing. and it h s propenies. adjccrilcs which qualify ir. Ir is. forcxampl.. whirc. nd ha.d. and swccl. The sugar. wc say. r.! allthdt: but $hrt lhc ir cln really mcln sccms doubtful. A rhing isnot rny onc ol rrt qunlitics, il you rake thar quality by irsclf: if's{ccl' wcrc lhc sarne.s smply swcet lhe thinS would clearlyhc nor srccr And. again. in so far as sugar is swecr ir is notwhile or hnrdt lor rhese propcnics.rre all dislind. Nor. again.can lhe thing bc all its propenics. ifyou lake them cach sc!e.-illy. Sugar is ohvously not merc whilcncss. mere hardncss. andmc.c swectncssi for irs reality lics somchow in irs unity. llut ilon thc olher hrnd. we inquirc whar rhe.e can bc in thc thinEb€side ns seleral qualities. *e nru hamed once morc we candilco:_er no rcal unrry exislang oulside ihese qunlnics. or. ngnrn.ex;sting wirhin rhcm

(Bradlcy lq. l0r l6)

Now. Bradley does not here refer crplrcilly to Hescl (lhough hiscxlmple ofa lu'nF ofsuSar may br supposed lo recall llcgol s sinrlarc\Jmnl( of . p, . (L r ' r '$[) . Jnd he , \ not snt t r r f Js atht I'hlnonk\tulolt: nonclheless. thcrc rrc inteRstrtrg prfullclsbet$ccn lhc l*1) prssrScr. {nd thc !rSunrcnt ofthc one nuy help sh!'dIghl on rhc rrSunrclrt ol lhe orh.r.

l - r l 'c I lcg. l . l l fudl ty hcrc r \c\ l i , ! r r i t bundlc ! icw k ' a\uhslrrrunr i r t t r rhule t r .$ l lc h, jgrr)s h! hbng the rcduchonrn posi-l rdn ol lhc hordh theonsr. \ rho nlenlrr i ls rhc rnd'v idunl thrng wnh ns

tnrpenrcs l l t r \ , tor Lr .nnplc. whrt . . rnd hxrd, .nd sweet ) . l lc lhcnrsl \ ho$ qc crn r ! ! lhr t lhrs rr so. r \ lhr ' \ould nuke the srngl . rndi-t ( lur l rdcnt ler l \ r t th rhr.c drslrncr tn[enrcs. l lc arSucs thnt th isdi i l icul ly crnnor hc. ladcd b! makrng lhe lh ing ident icr l wrrh iuslonc of lhcse pk'pcrlrcs. hccause il rs no nr(xe identrcal wxh lhrs oneprcpcrty than thc orhcrs. ;n so lar.N x aho has olher propcnics nndlhcsc lrc dislrncl Nor eln lhc diticuhy bc c\Ndcd by making lhc rhin8

54

idcnlicalwith allthe prop€rties taken toselher as a collectioni li)r thcy.tc hany and the thing is one ( Sugar is obviously not nrerc whiie-ncss. m€rc hddn€ss. and m€.e swe€tnessi for its reality li6 somchowin its unity'. where h€rc by Sugar' Bmdlcy would app€ar to still meanlh. individual lunp ofsugar, mrher than thc stufforkind). Faced wrrhthis puzzle. Bradlcy then inrroduces the subsrrdtunvanribute view,which hold! that the unrly of rhc thing is somcthi.g over and sboveits many qualities: rrthcr than idenlifying the individualwith its prop-.rtics, thc* are nos sccn as inhering in it. so thal thc is can now bct..ated l]s an 'is ofprcdicrtion mlher lhan an rs of identity. llowever.Bmdley rhen rui*s rhc rrad'tional objecrrcn. that we are now lcli wnhthe bntltrng idea ofthe thins as a bare panicular'. lacking In any prop-cnies (cl Hume 1978: 16. lN]onc will assen. that substancc is cilhera cobur. o. a sound. or a lasre . . . We hrt'e thcrcfore no idc,r ofsubslanee. dislincl ftrm lhal ofa collcclk,n ol plrlicular qualitics. norhave wc any other mcrn'ng when we talk or feason conccmin8 it. ).

Now. thc passa8c lrom the Pr.?,r,(,r,r,{r we halc bc€n con-srderinS mry bc nudc less myslerious hy rnlcrprct'ng ir In thc lghl ofArddley s argumcnt. (lrr litnhcr hclFful discussion ofthai rgunrnt.Iec llaxter 1996.) l-hus. llegel may bc undcrskrd !s suggcninS rhaithcrc is somethrng unsrrislirclory in thc hundlc !iew of rhc obiccr s6 co- inst ln l iat ion ol pk)pcrty inslanccs (ot (hc thrng rs xn Al ! r ' ) rss,on ns $c rcalzc lh|l th.sL J'iopen'r\ rrc d,n'trel lionr onc a othcr.a$ lhey must h( ifthcr_ rrc k, h( dctLnnrnrr. t l;r rhcy rfc only dcrcFminale In so fir rs thr! ,/r/ln,fldrf th.nNl\cs Iron onc rnorhcr. Jndru/d/., rhemsehcs ,', ,rh,a rs k) thcrr otpo\itcs ). lor ii rhcn rppcahlhai wc cannoi jdcntrlt /r/r

-irrdirrLlur!l $rth 11,.r" propcnics. lirr rhcn

n would bc nrany rnd Dor one ( Ycri rs lhu\ opposeLl lo onc rnolhcrth.) cnnnol be lotc lhor In rhc s inrplc uni l \ o l thcrr mcdiunr. whi(h is

Just !s csscnnal to thcn) rs ncgrtirn ) wc nay then dls(nSutsh rhethrnS as onc frcm lh. prcpcnics as many. .l shrch poinl *c hulclmvcd ar lhc subslralum'altrtbulc !i.\. ol trnrvcrsals .s prcdrcarcsinhcnng rn (mlher lhan consr i ru l rnS)thc Indrt idual th in8. Thus. l {c8clus.s thc onermany pfublcm lo Ber us fr()m lhe bundlc view lo thcsubstrulum,'anribule !rcw. in a way thrl Br l€y also adon|ed.Moreolc.. as we shrll scc shonly. Hegel likc Bradley thoughl th.rt rhetubstrllumrltributc \ic$ is jusi as problcmrlic as the bundlc vrcw:

THr DTALECTTC Of Tf ia OAItCT

THI O IAL E CIIC Of Tl I t OSItCI

bur whcre Bradley wenl on 1o claim rhat this mcans we can neverrcacha coh€r€nt view ol rcrl(y, I{egel merely toot rhis puzzle to show rharwc musl start wrth a deeper conception of universaliry rhan thatadopted herc by p.rccpiion. (For morc on the genenl issuc of howBradlcy s pcssnrism .ontrasrs with HeSel s larionatisric oF,rimism. s€eSlcm 1991b:2(xr, l . )

llcforc qes$ how t lc8cl's discussion de!elops along thesc lines.rl is InlcrcslinS n' sk wherhe.the Hegel/Br dley ahempl to underminclhc hundlc \ics sueeccd\. Onc stand{d obJection ro Bradtcy s argu-nrrnr tlird rhus k) IIclcl r (n thrs Emdlcyan reading) is rhal hc fails lodi\tnrguish thc r'ol rd.Drnv tiom thc rs o! prcdrcarion (ct. Ul,rnshardl9x. l l l l l8) lnr t th is dbjecoon ippcnN tnisguided. as in t rd therr$un)enr secns d!'srSncd lo take us /r,4r rhc ii of jdenrily ldoprcdby thc bundlc vicw r,r rhc is ofpredrcalron rdoprcd by thc sLrbstrnhrmlrlhbutc vicw (whcrc rhrs is ihen sl(rwn to bc no morc sirristircroryrs.r $ay of undcat.rndrng rhe is' rh.n ihc bundle theorisl s rd.nliry.on.!phon. bcclusc rhc rhrng of whi.h rhc anribure is prcdicalcdtf,'conres a mtncnous b.rc pan'cuhr). A norhcr objeclion nriShr bc rhar!s so hr presenlcd. thc llcScl,Rmdlcv ar8uD.nt olerlooks rtr ob!krusrc\ponsc by the bLrndlc theo.ist. nrmcl). thlr lhc lhing js rdcnricrt $irhlrs propcnics ik ur r t(ldti.rt to trx, dnothrr, wherc rh t rct ron issuilicrenl to mdkc lhc scver.tl prcpcnics inkr a nnglc indi!rduat. Now.rn lict Bradlet hinrscll does consider rhN dnoon. md dcals w[h rrh.B.l) bv lno n8 on ki qucst,on *hcrh(r r.brkhs crn posrblv matea ntnv Inlo n onc r lhrs uay. or shcrhr rh. manv onc is$rc w,tlnlsrts rc cnr$gc (\cc llrrdlc!' I 9-10 I (, Ltl t lc8.l. howercr. (locs nor(or\rdcr thrs obt.crr . rnd olT.rs n0 su(h Scncrdl . rgunrcnl rgninslr . l ! r rnNi hul in r . . t l | r \ r \ not n.c.ssrnl \ , r ( lUicuhv. hr. x sh(rk lh. rcrnc,nh.r .d thJ i t rhr \ p(nnr rh. otrr !u\nl \ he is (onsden S l retr ' t ) .n\- t rnr \ . r \x l \ tshrr . t r . \ \ . l rnn.ss rr . ) . l r t t rc.n {hr.h no ruh-rxnr ho \ . n)

'hrr rherr ( l \c .sn\ exnnor h( o\rrc.me rn thrs $r) la\

l lLscl hrnr, . l l nur\ r t lhc $h rnc\ \ ( iocs nor Jt l .d rhc cuhrcr ln pc.rr)( l n(r lher rr t i . r \ rhe rxn t lsr . . crc _ rn lhc eonl .ary. s inec crch is IsrD' t lc rc lx l rn! o l {e l l to \c l l i l lca\cs rhe (nhcrs ! lonc, and rs conncetcdwrlh thcdr onl ! bJ" lhc l t r t l t lcrunl Aln) (PSi68 r))) .

' Ihu\ . h i t rns h.8un with rhc bundlc rhcory ofrhc obtcct . l teget.r . ( \ rh. , r rc n, . ,n\ nr ! .b lcn' r . \h, , \ h, 's r . {h(x,u\n(s (Jrnor R.r .

'

56

thc reductionin conccption ofthe individual wilh which ir bcr n. sothat we anivc at thc substmtufttartriburc conceprjon instcrd. Itcgelnow scts oul loshow rhar cons.iousness cannor resr conlcnr wilh cirherview. claiming thal lilt is only a mauer ot devcloping rhe contrudic,trons that are prescnt rherein' ( PS: 70 ) llcgclarSucs rhar cons. iousnessoscallales b€lween the one conceprion and the orher. somelmestrealrng lhe objecr as a bundle ofpropenics whrch rhcn undcrmines itsscnsc thal thc object is really a unified individual disrincl trum otherindividuals. and somctrnrcs trentrn8 thc obJccr as a uniry ovcr andabo!. ils plurality ofprcp.nies. whrch thcn l.ads ro th€ idea ofo char,aclerlcss sub.rrnlum and b.ck to the Thrs ol sense,certarnry Pcrcep-lron clnnot decjdc whrch conceplion is rhc correcr charactcn/:rfion ofhow thrngs !re. and whrch conception mcrcly results lrom lhc delu-sive rnduencc on us ol how things.ttpcar ro us to bc:

The objecr whrch I apprehend prcscnrs itsclfpurely as a),!,: burI also per.eilo in it a propeny which rs luirtadl. and whichrhereby hnscLDds rhe sinaullr'ry lol rhc objecrl. The lirsr bcingofrhe oblcct r! L' L.sscnce as a Onc wrs rhcrcfore nor ils lru. bcing.tlut jncc lhc d/,/,r r is $hal is truc. lh. unrrurh li s In nrc: Dydpp.ehensron wrs nol conecl . (h xccouDr o1rhc r4ir . / \d/ i^ ofthc p.operry. I nNsl rnrhcr tal.lhe ohicerr\c csscncc kr bc o thc$holc. (dD,rr , /A I no$ Iunhcr pue.r ! . lhc pror lcr i ! ( l r bcllt.rntn tu. '\1"\.J ti lnoth.r .nxl!\eludrng rr. thrs Idrd notin l-rict npprLh.r{! rlf ohjcetr\( .ss.n.. ror.ell! \hcn I d.Uncdi . \ a t t r t r torh $nI orhcn. or xs r .onl |n! , r ) . on rccount oftlic Jrkntivtur'\\ of thc n(,pca). I Drun hrclt Lrp rtr. conlinurry !n( i posir rhc ohlc. t i ! . cs\c ec rs r ( )n. rhxt c\etudcs

( t 's : r0 t )

l iEcr l $ i t l r thc t$o- l i ) ld \ r ! o l \ rc{rn8 rh. objr . t . J\ onc xnd nsm!n). p(r.epror r\ t,rn h+tq.cn on rhe one hrnd nralmt rhc obteelindcpcndcnt ol ,rs pluftIry of tn,pcnrcs. and rr..r,ng rlcnr !ssccondu'1, rnd nr ! \ holdr g lhal thc Thrn! rs whirc only k) , r , .1. . r ..rA, lan to orl torSuc. .//v) cubical Io ,rr k)Lrch, and so on (PSr 7l),and on lhe other hrnd lxributing rhrsc p()pcrlics to lhc ohjccr irscll.b 8'!c il a way ol dislinguishing it froln orhcr thrngs and ki rloidnt lkrng th. ohteet \ nr turc indct .nnjnrrc. so rhrr on rhN \rc\ ' r r , \ In

THT OIALECIl< OF T| l€ OA]ECT

5l

IHT OIALECIIC OT IA' OA'ICI

lruth, ihen, the ThinS uself rhar is wh;te, and .rh, cubical, 4hd rln,and so on (PS: 73). ( ('nesponding io lhis two-fold li€w ofrh€ obj€cl.there is a rwGlbld licw of the role oflhc subjccr. as eilher breakinsup rhe unny ofrh€ obj!.cr Inro a ptumlny ofprop€nier, or 6 hotdingroSerhcr rhlr p lumtrry In lo a uniryr as Heg€tputs h. . t fwe l@k backon whar eonsciousness prcviously rook. and now tates. .esponsibilitylor. on what rr preriously lscnbed, and now asc.ibcs, ro ihe Thin8. wcsee rhal coDsciousnrss atr.jmarety makls its€ti as we as rh€ Thin8.

'nlo both r pure. many-tcss 0r(, and into an ,{/so rhnr rcsotles nstf

rnro rndcp.ndcnt _mrncrs (PS: 74)At this srage. hilin8 to find any w.y to dccidc which way ol.

vr.srng th. thrnS rs corccr and which dctusive. consciousness ndwa[nburcs horh uniry nnd diversity to thc objecr irscll rnd a cmpts rorendcr thrs \res consrsrrnt by rrcarin8 rhe manttbld prcptnrcs osInessenlrrli but bccdusc rr is onty rhcsc propcni$ rhar disiinguish irfrom rnylhiDg elsc, uonscrousness is tbrced to a.ln r rhat thcy xrcnonethclcss nccessary kr rhe objecr. so rhc dirlincrion berwcen cssen-tial and incssrntial hcrc Lollapscsr .Thas. howe!er. is x d,slincrion rhlris slill only nominatt thc uncssenrirl. whrch is nonc rhc tcss supposcdlo bc ncccssary. crnecls ilscll out (PSi 76)

llcScl rhercforc ollcrs his dinSnosrs of whar has gone wrurghcre. which. .s sc hr!c rtrridy pointcd our. tcuscs (,n thc ina.lcquxreconcepoon ol rhe calcgdn.s of unr\cr!,t,r)- and i ivjdurtity h(in8ui'd by pcr.eprion: shrlc pcrcepl;on hns snne SrxsF df rhc c.rcgoryol-univcrsr l . r t is an extrLnrcly hmircd cdnecpr ion. whieh tredts uni lcFsat! !s srDptr scnsuous pR'pcny instrncc\ t jkc t rh i te.{Dd.cuhrcat. :tha hn\ lc(l ir lo rcduee the oblecr r{) r ttLt tir\ ol uorctllcd nrrrihtrr!\.srrh ! l l l I ( c,r \equ.nr ( t , t l icut l lc \ lhxr t i r !et hrs nnat\ \cdl

I l i Is rh! obt !er r r ts f t r re tct . r [ , r r tcn.ss. ( ! in the dclcnrr-r ' .1.n.$c\ qhi .h $crc {rppr)sc(t nr r ( \ tnurc \ e\ \ .Dr int bcing.r \ t ) \ ( r ronc tusl ! \ \ur . tv x\ r r $. , { r r r r5 s!r \n}us bcing. l ionrI \co{r{ \ c(rnt l . ' r rhc t . \ ! t d l s.n\e-. .n nrf l r r rumcd Inr(}r urr \e 's. l Jrr r l ( tc!ct ofpe.( .p l rnr l : bur rhis unirersal . !nee11.,1\ t t t t t \ i t th! . r j t \uou ! . is css.nr id l ty drkl r tn lby i t . andhcn(e r \ nol t ruty I sct f - idcnt i ra l uni t .Anl i ry a . bul oncdlllt ttll I nh dn tIIr^nn,1: for rhr\ reNon rhc trnilcKatrtv sptir\

58

I

IIIt

i

ItII

IIi

IHI OIALTCIIC Of IHE OB"CI

inlo thc extremes of singula. individuality and univcrsality.inlo lh€ One of the propcnies, and the Also oflh€ li'ee matters'. . . The sophislry of pcrception sceks lo sve thcs€ momentsfiom th€ir contradicrion. and it s€eks to lay hold on the truih. by

distinguirhing the av..tr. by slickinS 1() the Also alld lo the'in so far'. and finally, by disringuishing the'unessential'aspcclfrom an ess€nce which is opposed to it. Bul these €i(pedienls.

insread of *srding ofl dcccption in thc process ofapprehensron.prcve $cmselves on lhc contmry to bc quite emptyi anil lhe lruthwhich is supposed ro be won by lhis logic of thc perceptualproccss proves lo bc in one and thc same respect lhc oPPoslc

lol ilselll and thus to hale ar its essencc a unilcnaliry which is

de!oid of dislinclrons and deremrnaoons.(PS: 76 7)

Thus. whul this seclion is mcdnl kt show. is thal ahhough lhere

is some adlancc in rnovins flom rhe ireducible Individuality ofsense-

ccrtainty lo lhc inslances of prof'cny-univcrels rccognized by

prrcepiion. this does not lakc us far cnoughl for. as lhe problems

cnLuunrereJ h) Nr( .prron hr\ , : rctealc, l . l r lh( l , ,wc'r fon!{ i r ion unc

can havc of the universal nr i ts conncxon wi lh lhc tndrvrdul l is th is

rxremal rel.tion ot ir as mcrcly ! conrmon cl|jnrenl (Sl.: t:IL Faccd

wnh !n irrcs(nt.blc os.rllrlnn hct$..n l\to equlll! ur$lrsllclor,l

rccounisof lh.Thing as (hc rnd{s Aln) *hr.h hrs rcsl l tcd l iotr l

lh is conccplrrr o l thc unr!eNxl , .onsciou\ncss row rbrndons thls

onblogy. lnd lrkcs up inttLrd tht ont('l('!' ol li'rec - which is lh.

lixus of thc r\ llcgcl rr.i lrom I'crccptroD lo

force and the Underitandinq

In the Perccprron s.ctron. cohciorsncss hrs flilcd k, liM rrlionll

saiisflclion in thc ordin!ry $orld ot comnt)n_sense. $rlh its onloloSy

oi rhings and p()pcnies. .s lhrs has led il inl() a dialeclit ol onc indi-

vidual and mrny propcnrcs which il did nol have thc rcsources to

r€sdle. ln Forc. and lht UndcrstandinS . cons.iousness lries ro get

round lhri drllicultv by sctrnr8 rrdc onlt'logy, and

ill

i

I

J59

IHf OIAIECTIC O' THC OSITCT IHf OIAIT(TIC OT THE OSJECT

I

molrng to a mciapbysrcal piciure lbat rcplaces lhe obJccts ofordinarys€nse ex|ericncc wlth lhc very diflerent conception of the worldpr€s€nt€d to us hy the n.tulal sciences. where the manifcsl imaSe'ofthings and piopenr$ is scr Nide in favour oflhe scicntilic ima8c' ol'lhc world liloured by physrcs. in which this common-sens€ onrolo8yis reiected (lo usc lhe Icrminology of Sellars 1963).

Whcrc ludav wc might think oflhis scientific imaSe in ierms ot-thc rudrcnlly rctr$onary metaphysrcs of qulntum lheory. in Hegcl slrnt lhis scr(ntrli. conccptnn srs centrcd on the nolron of force. whrchapp(arcd l() oncn up, pr.lurc ol lhc world \ery difltrcni from lhalprcscnlcd l(r os bf sensc cxFrience. Thc concepl ol lbrce cnmc kldo'nlnalc cjghtccnrh-ccnlLrry physics through the work of Newk,n.$hrlc tl.!rtr! rptunnncnt rolc rn thelhotrSht ofDescancs, Lcrbnr/. andlirnl In trnr.uhr. Kanl \ dynamical vrcs oimaner srs t.ke up brhchtc lnd S.hcllin8 and \o bccame incorpofuled into thc dc!clopmcntol the Nuhorrhilt'*\,hi! lphil'sophy ofnaturc) ofthc (icnnan idcalsts{ lbr 0 helpful hrs lor icr lovc^ ' icw, see l -unrcren l99l) . In l icw ofrh.ccDtmlity of lhis concepl in mrkins possrhlc i n.w prcrurc ofrenlir).thlldcprned lrom thc iradir(nll onktoSy of nr{rcrial suhstances. it husheen obseRcd rhlt'lilfonc $, nled lo chnmclcrizc thc Scncml scienriliclpnroach ol thc cifhleenlh-ccniury by me ns of I singlc conccpt.there sould hc nruch to bc siid lbr selcctrng lhc noti()n of /i)/,i,lT lhe di !ersnv olcortcxt \ strhin whrch r t wn\ bcins t 'ppl icd f includc. l l. . r l .ssrc l l nrcchanics . u id mcchanics. Dagnel lsm nd eleclr ic i t t .

chcuistry. br , ldgy and nrcdic ine. as $cl l rs psychdlogy. cthies.rcnh.t i .s rnd phvsklrheology lNcuscr l r ) t )1 l l r l . l )

) io$. 'n

hr\ d6.us$or . l l i , rec. l lefel \ r r t i tudc r \ .hamcrrnrl r ( r l l \ nurn. . r ! l i , r . $hr l f hr 5.c: h, t r \ r r , ! r ( \ .nf thc n(nion ol l i le.r \ r l l r re l r \ ( . I r rhrr r r i t ) f . , t r \ k, !c l (^(r rh. af( ! r r he.d b) thc

! . f (ct lknr ( ' l lhrn! \ rn( l | , r 'p.r l ic \ . hr r | t ) l r ics t ( )\ho$ h({ \ rhr \ ' \er .orr l l ( InuS. r \ \ . l r f rohlcnut |e_ nr \o lar r \ r rlrlc\ us n |rr .r\n! lionr lhc eonrmnr scnsc (on.!.pt|(D. and \o onccrSr in lcrds r , , i t )o/ / lc c,nrc. f inng Indr\k lur l ty and unr!$sal ly. l lelhus dinrn. .s hinNClr ' lnr)r lhc contc Nfury phiby)phic l l enthu-\i;rnn litr thL nol on ol li'r.c. trvlng to sho$ that it is not possible nrsol\. our phrkNothrcrl drlli(trlt;cs sinrply bt mo\!n8 lionr rhc m.n!lcsr to ihc serc!rrr l ie rmrgc

Hegel begins by bnngin8 our how tuming to thc scicntilic imaSemight app€af to fepres€nt an advance tbr consciousnessi we no longcrhavc lo face the dialectic of one and rnany that applied to things. asrealrty is now conceived of as an interconnecred whole of inlemallyrclatcd forcesi In olher wordr, lhe "matt€N" posited as indep€ndentdireclly pass ovcr into rheir unity. and rheir unily dir€ctly unfolds irsdiversity, and this once aSain icduces itscll to unity. tsut this move-menl is wh is called l;ft. (PS:81) This inrerconnccredness is norvisrble lo us diredly in thc world Biven to scnsc expencnce. where ilappr:a6 lhal rcalrty consisls ofdislincl entirirsi but rhis pattcm is nowlakcn by conscir'usness lo bc merely rhe appcrrance ofa more holislicstructure of rnlcmally connccred lbrces:

t'rem rhrs we sec rhar rhe Notior ol Force bc.omcs ./.r!r/lhrough ns duplicntron inlo lwo titrccs, rnd how il eomcs lo bcso. Thcsc tso Fb.ccs crlst as indepcndcnt csscncos: but theirexislcn.c is r movcnrcnl of each ()wards lhe othcr. such thlltheir bcin8 is ralhcr ! purc/'drn./r.$ or a being lhul is /,{,rr../nf an ,tr./: r.e. lhcir bemg hrs rcllly lhc signrtic,rnec ofa shecrtr/r'rrr8 . . ( onsequcnrly. lhcsc nr(nlenls i.c nor dividcd inrotwo

',xlcpendent cr\trenrcs olTcrins .r(h othcr only xn oppositc

cxtrenrc: lhcr. cssencc ritthcr con\rsl' ! rply !nd !)l.l)' in this.th l l . ! .h, \ $ lc ly thn, !8h rhc orhcr. ! t rd Nhrt c ieh l ln ls is r trnrnrcdrr tc ly no lonScr is. s inc. n , \ l lu orht i [hc ' hare lhus.In l : !c l . no srbst inccs ol lhcir o* i {h i .h nrght sLrppoi andnrainkrn thtm . . ' l 'hus thc t ru lh or ' lor( . rctru,ns dr l ! thcrhxr.(rr ol rtr rlte nlonr t\ .l ih rctuhl\. thcrr {rhn!n..s sndth. ; nx\cnN)t . col lnts. nr le$\ l iD8l) r ( r nn undr l l iJenl i i tL{unil) l his lrue c\\cD!. ol Th rgs hrs nos lhc chrftctcr olnot bcirS immcdilt.ly laf .on\cr'u$rcss: on lh. contrary.conlc(rrs'rcr\ has r nr.drllcd r.l.ti( k) th. ;nncr b.n! and. asrhe Undcr\tanding. l',lJ thnrryh thi\ ,halionns tli\ .l For..\tnh) th. t,1t hd(*F\nu t)l Thitl!.\

(PS: I i5 6)

Thus. according lo the scicnrilic rhcorist. consciousnesr .annot lindrut'on.l salislictNn rf n dcals wirh the world as prcscnrcd to us bvscnsc expeneneei rl, howc!cr. rl i.eais thrl $orld rs a nr.rc lmcrrincc.

60 61

HE D ALECI C Of IHE OSITCT

and instead thinks in terms of the more holistic notion of lbrcc asunderlying thar amer.lnce, rhen (rhe theorisr claims) a way can befound to ovc.comc thc orehany probtem rhat ilced pcrception:'Wirhin rhis trr.f r?rr . . . the absotute M t t.rsd t . . has been pu.8edot the antith.,.\i\ bctwccn lhe unrverMt and rhc indilidual and hasbccomc rhc objccl ol thc Unlerturdins tps A7).

llowcver. consciousness rhen d'sco!ers rh.i pricc nrullbe paidil rr r cmpts r{) lserll. thc puzztes thrt rris. out ot-our ordrnrryconectlron ol rhc $orld hy m)t]rng to the l{.o trca tlc* ldopted bylhc s.rcntr l ie lhconsr ' lhc inner wor ld i \ . t i , r conscousness. st i a/rr1,^4,,,1 hecrusc eonsciousress do.s nol ycr Und nsel in it. Ir isr,r,f,^. lar rt i\ nrcrLly thc norhingness of apperrancc. and posiri\etytht \ i ry)h, t \ t Lr ihut univrrsat (PS: 88) Ihc di l l icul t ) , I tcget presscsrs a l inr i l i r r on. : r l lhouSh n]ol ing f ro 'n lhe manltesr k, thc scienrr l jeinlrgc nrry hclp us escdp. rhe aporir ofpercetrion. the bifurcation Inour *odd{ icw rhis enhi ls c.earc\ {s man} probtcms as n sot \cs. a,oncc wc go bekrw the le\cl ofcmpiricrt phenomenx. ir becomes hrrderlo deicnd the chim thrr we hr\e cognilivc access to this undcrtyiugrcalrly. or lo kno$ what $e cin sdtr aboul il: il rhuj bc(onNs ir 'supcrscnsihle bcyond. oursidc rhe rcrch ofour in lc l tecruat powcrs Thus.

't sccms thnt the scienlilic theorin clD.ot givc us qrounds inr raking

h's prcture ol- the wor ld scr iousty fon an onlotogi .at poinr of ! ie! ! .unless he can Si!c Srounds for tating this piclure k) bc lruci bul ho$carr tuch grounds hc gilerr. $hcn we h.\c sone bcyond rhe djr.crc\nl . ' cc of lhe \cnscsl

Al lhrs pornl , rh. u.dersrrnding l l tcmtrs r , , rcndcr rhi \ \ufc l\crsbtc rcr t r r tcss nrv\ l r r r ( , !s h). ( lc f r i l_\rng i t Ni lh rhc lNsi rhat! ( \cnr rhc rr turx l th l r rnn.rr . $hreh horh nrfd rho!r lhc phcnonrcnarn( l Ie rr \ r I i r ix t . ( l r t r thcnr ' ( in lsc! ! .nr l \ . lhe \ r / , f / r . r , i6t . ,$ortdL\ r r Lncr l , ,?rr , t l / r I $ hich. rhtrrgh bcvond thc f . rc. ived $ortdl i ) r rh i \ c\hibrt \ hs onh rh(rrgh inc.ssanl .hrrg. rscqua yt , r5.r /In i l , ! i ( i rs i ls ( l r rc. t t r rnqrr l Imrsc Ihr \ rcr tnr o1-ta$.s is indecd rhclruth l i t r rhc t ndr, \ r r r t l i t r ! , rn( t thxt rnnh hrs i ts, ,ak), in thc t rq.(PS: 90 l )

llegcl scc\ drrliculrics hcrc. howcler t'trsr, he argues that onrhrs conccttron ot hs_ rt is naturat tar rhc undersrdnding to look tbrsonrc wa) 01 unr i_ying [s l r$s into a uni t i .d rheoryi but . .whcn thr

TH€ DIALECTIC OF THE OA]ECT

laws lhus coincidc, lhcy lose lheir specillc characrcr. The law bccomcsmore and morc sup€rficid. a.d as a rcsult what is found is. in tacl. nollhe unity ofrr4e rpe(ir.laws. bul a law which leavcs our their speciliccharacrea (PS:91). In orher wo.ds, in becoming uni f icd lhe hwsbecome mo.e general. and in becoming more general they losc lhcirnpplicability to the concrete world. Sccond. he argues th rn undcFstanding of lhc world in tenns of laws is incomplete. becausc itprovides no rnswer lo thc question ofshy thesc laws obtain. when irappears thl|l thc unilcrse could hale obeyed other laws: Bur 1n allrhese lbnns lol lawl. necessity hls sfiown fiself to bc only an empiyword (PS: 9: l ) Third. he c larnrs rhal whi le la lvs ma) hclp us io th inkabout pbenomena in general lerms. thcy describe raiher than propcrllcxplain: Thc siDglc occurrence ol l ighhins. e.s. . is aptrehended !s runi lcrsr l , dnd lh is univcrsal is enunciated as lhc /d! ofelecrr ic i ly i rhe' 'cxpl lnar ion thcn condcnscs lhe /dn. jn lo Fr11,as thc cssence ol lhclaw ln this tluldoAierl movcmcnr. the tjndcrsrxnding, as we haleseeD. srlcks to lhe Inerl unily of thc obiect. and lhe molcmcnt fallsonly wi th in r l re t lndcrsranding r lsel i not wirhin the ohjccl . l l is arcxphnnton lhal nol only explains nothing. but is so obrrurs If/dJthal. whilc il p.ercnds lo sxy somelhrng dillircnr fol whrt hrs alreadybeen suid, rcr l ly srys nothirS rr a l l hur.nly rcpcnrs thc sNn)e rhing'(PS 9: l 5. l l rnslrron nul i l ied; c i : SL: . l5r i 9) . l lcre. rgrrn. i r scemsthat lhe la$s ol thc l rn( lc. \ ( rnding do not r .kc u\ r rueh hclond thercrlnr ol rpNaflrn.. .rd !, se rre lcli qrth rhr *o.l(l ol lbrccs asd myncrnn's beyond-. Ihus. s l 'cr . . i rhc undcNlrnding begln r i th Iconcct l i (nr of lorccs rnd h$s r \ t r r ters{ ls utrddl)1rg rhe partrculrrobiccts rs lhcy rpperr lo us. il no$ \ccs that t!rlhout thc f.rtrcularityol errprner l fhcnonrcna. rhcr. {ould be no eonrenr t ( ) our ralk ot 'general luNsi i ls c l . rn ' r , ) h! !c esrrbhslr .d thr pnonly ol uni lcrsal i l )ovcr parlicularit) in lh's re\pccr has thcrctdr. proved unsl!blc.

Thcn, in a linal ltounsh. llcgcl puls li)Nard the ide! ol thc'inrcncd world . !s I kind ol

^dtu 1n) nl dhlotluht of undernnnding s

'lwo-lici concctli(nr of rcrln). Hegel hud liAl uscd thc term 1n hrsfnrroductroD to the a)-rn?r|Jaumd ol Phtb\a \ in lliol. where hecomhent\ lhlt in ils esotcric larm, in rts relationship to common-sense lhe wor ld ol phr losophy is in dnd lbr i rsel l -an invcned wo d'(CJ1: :81) l l ls d iscussion ol the inwdcd world in the lh.n 'n.rdol l r

I62 61

THE D A LE CTIC Of IHF OB]ECI

is linked into his previous dccounrs of lbrce md law in a way thar iscxrremely hard 1o lbllowi bul rhe ge.eral pornt seems 10 be that oncethe undcrslanding posits a superscnsible world overand abovc rhe oneapparent to ordinary experience, ir then becomes very hard forconscrousncss ro s.y shat the world is really like'in ilself:

Looked Nl sufErlicially. this invc.ted world is the oppositc ofthelirsl rn thc sens. thrr it has thc hxcr oulside ofil and repcls rhatworld liom ilscli !s

^n in\ened kttdl wtl.l: thal lhc onc is

rppc'rftoc.. but thc othcr the in-ilsell: thrr the one is the worldrs it is tilr rn olhcr, $hcrcas the other is lhc world as it rs torrrscl l So rhir t kr usc thc prc! ious eramples, shrr tdnes sweet istu\ h, ot t t n \ in the th iDg, sour: or shat is north pole inllre rclull n[gner in lhe \,,orld of appc.rancc. would bc $uthpolc in thc trkl at r.\\|,rtirl hlirgt whrt prescnls ilsclf rsoxlsc pole in lhc phenonrenon ol elcctricily wotrld be hydroscnpolc in unmanrl is lcd c lcctr ic i ty

(PS: 97 8)

ln turning liom thc mrnil-cst to the scientilic im{gc. consciousness,rsundcrstrndrn! has rherclb.c fnilcd to altain ftlional sdtisfacrlon: b)concciving of the scjentilic imrgc as a simple negrlion of the mani-t-esl imagc, dll rhar crn be ascnbcd 1o thc innea (and lruc ) world isthe opposi te ofwhrtcver we percci \c, nonc ofwhlch helps us 10 undcFn.nd or exphin whl t wc percei !e.

l {egcl ends this scct ion by adoprrng lhe nNndpoin( oi lhe we'(rs fh.ronrcnokrgical obscn.rs) . te l l ing us thar l rom this standpoinr.rhc dur l i i r o l rh. t l idcrsl !ndin8 cNn h. o!c.c,me drr lc. t icr l ty in the(r 'cet l o l lhc rry ' r t . : t (nn lhc id.r . Ih.r . o l i r !cr t ron. \Lhich const i -turcs rhc css(ntrr l r r tor . o l o c rs l lc . t o l rhf supcrse srblc wor ld. wenrtrs l r l , , i r r r re th. scnsuous dcl l { ' l l i \ inS thc di i i iJcnces in a di t turcntsustxrr ing c lc i lcnt . . lhus thc s!rper\cnsrble sor ld. which rs rhe!r \cr lcd {dr ld. hr \ r l rhc srnrc t rnN r^cfurehcd thc other wor ld andhas i r \ i rh in r l t i t i \ / , , i /n, / / thc In lcr t .d wor ld, i .e. lbc invenion oli tsel l : r t is i ls . l l Nnd rhr () tposi tc in onc unrty Only lhus is i l d i i leFence as t,x!/ dilliidrcc, (tr dilt!'rence ,r rr o!, rc//. or dilie.cnce .srn irrrll (PS 98 9) ll.gcl erpl ins thxr fronr this perspectilc. thcproblems rhal irrisc Ii,r lhc Understandrng are rcrlly pseudo-problems,

64

OF THE OSIECT

as they do not apply to the infinne so conceir'ed: Accordingly. we donot need to ask the queslion. still less to think thar fretting ovcr suchaquestjon is philosophy, orelen thal il is aquestion philosophy cannoranswcr. rhe question. viz. Hor'. ftotr. lhis pure essence. how docsdiffercnce o. otheness ri{ls /o4, from il']" Fb. the division inlo t$'omom€nt! h$ ahcady taken place. ditTerence is excluded from thesell-identrcal and sct apart from ii. W}al was supposed to be rh€ r?4:idcrrli.l/ rs lbus alr€ady onc ot these two momenls instead of beingthe absolute essence (PS: 100). flere. rhen. we hare a dialecricalstruclurc of identity-in-diilerencc, whcrc thc inlinite is not disrinclfrom lhc iinitc, but.ather contarns lhc linire wirhin it {ct EL: {942.pp. 137 8). As llcsel makes clear. ho$evcr, consciousness is tjndeF(andrng is nol yet reddy to gr.sp the conccpl ol lhe inEnitc in rhisway. and so is cut oll- f.on this resolut;on ol ils dilllcuhics: lnthe coDtrary larf. rs the invc.sion of the linl law. or in thc inncrdittcrcncc. it is tnrc rhat rnfinittr irsclt beconres the ,ila1 of theUndcrnindingi but once again the Understanding falls short of inlinilyns such. sincc il lgrin apponions lo lwo worlds. or b two suhstan-l ia l e lenlents. thal which is r d i l iarence in r lsel l thc scl l rcpuls ionofthe selr 'same and rhc scl fdr l racrnn of thc unlk! (PS: l0 l l ) .Unable to grasp t i , r i tsc l l th is R) lur i ( ! r k) i ts d i l l i .u l r imusl look l i r sr l is l ic t rorr rn rrothcr srv. rs n no l ( gcr rppcars r lcan l ind i r l . l l . . tuxl hxnnon) ' wi lh rhe w(nl(1. dnd so N.hic\ t what i lsecks. rvhi(h i \ , ,1 iGel l r r , r \ tn|cn)cs\ ' l l ,S l0 l ), , i , knos thrs rs fossihlc. ( ee o\erconrcs Lls onrsjdel lness. bul r l rs onl ! l , r \ rhr l lh,s l r rLIh e\rs l r . not ) .1 Lrconscrousie\ i (PS 102)

Thrs. i t r rhc , ,pcr) i g ehrt te. o l rh. / , r . r ,&2/1djaf . t lcScl hassk)wn how lurdrnrenr l l f rc lath!srcrL rnd cprst .nrokuleal pnrblcnrsansc ktr conscusncss hccrusc ol rhc wals in which has so lirrconcci \ed of lhc rc l . l i (nr bet$cctr n! !ersr ls and indi \ idu| ls. 1 lc8elhas lricd ro dcnn,nslrrtc that non. ol rhcse rla)rs is rdcqu!tc. !s cachleads consclousness rnlo ccr l r in l i rndxmcnral . lpor ia\ . so thr t somc nc$c,,nrf t r , d o ' l '< ' ( ( r ' ( ! , { ( . I r .Nrbcr i 'urJr l c n\ r iu\r( \ , r \ rurcrch d rururally satislacroh- nrehphysicrl picturc of rhe world.Conscn'usncss do.s not g.asp lhal ncw conccption 6 th. Phlrtt,&"r,/o8r'. hose!!r. Ns this is lhc toh ol lhe 1.,gn' fttr which lhis cntr.al

It

j

65

discussion is supposed 1o prcplfc it: all thc l'r.ron.rdloA]. is meanlro shoq is lh3t thc oplrons exempli{ied by sense-ceriainty. perception.and rhe under\rJndine ha\c fd led. so rhat consciou\n$s musr r .m(ro a new way of thinking if lhese problemalic standpoints are to bealoided. Put very bdefiy: Hegel a.gues in the hglc thal whal isrcquircd is a subsrancc-kind conccplion oflhc unilcrsal, such as 'man'or'horsc'. which cscrpes the ont/mnny problcm by btins a ri,a/r,essential propcrly ol-the rndrvdual tnken as a Lrnitied entity. so thnllhe indiv idual is ncrrhrr . r Inerc bundle ol d1!erse propedy'universah.nor a hare quality-lcss subnratunr this conccplion is then sullicienl tosecure lhc conrm)n'scns. ontology of objccls withoul recourse to thetwo l icr prc lurc ol thc Undc6t inding. (( f . PS: 19, Thc univcrsdl isnol nrcrnl lo h! !c mercly thc s igni l icance ol r predicale. as i f thcpr()poslion rsserled only thal lhe acrurl is unilcrsal; on lhe conlrary.rhe unirersal is ineant to c\press the essence ol lhc actual. C l alsoSl-: .ltr 7. IE]ach human bc'ng rhough lnlinitcly uniqlrc rs so primarilybecruse hc is . ,,2,. and each indi!idual animal is such an individualpr inu. i ly bccrusc i t is in rninr i l : i f lh is is t ruc. lhcn i t sould bc impossiblc ro sry whrt such rn indi l idur l could sr i l l bc i f th is founddt ionwere remolcd. no lnrtrcr how richly endowed thc in(hvidual night bcwnh other predrcales, jl: lhat rs. lhrs lbundalion can eqLrally bc callcda predicale like lhe olhers F_or llnher discus{on ol Hegel s positrvcposit;on. sec Sl.nr l99l).)

The tranrition to Self-con5ciournelt

l [ \ ,ng corrc lh, : r i r . I Ie8el i r on rhe lhreshokl o l nn, ! rng ]nb hrsdr\rrssrrr or scl l - .d i \ rn)r^nc\ \ . t rheru rh. r i 'ens * ! i tehc\ l ion hosrons. iors 'cs\ . ( r ' rcrr .s ot rh ln ls in thr \o d. l ( ' hos i t conccrte\ o l 'r tscl l qur {rht . . t . l r rs nol .n l l rc l ! . l . i f . ho$crcr. how lh is t r rnsr l ionl ionr lhc ( l r r l . ( l r ( o l lhe ohrccl k, lhc diNlccl ic ol lhc subicct iss'ptoscd ro eonre rhour.

( t ' or ' . rcr( l i , ig (c.8. I ' , tprn l ' )n ' ) : l . l l .1: . RocLmore l t )97:56 l l . Stc$rn l l l00: 5t) . ' ) ' ) l l l ] ) . thrs l raDsi l i rn is to be underslood incssenlrr l ly Krnl i rn l$nis. r r rh. t whrt hNpFn\ . t ier the apor ia 01 thein!crtcd world i\ thrl eonsci(r sn.ss comcs k) accctt thNt Ltlhecssenc.of l tperrunccs. th( or iSin () l thc uni ty rnd ordcr oi ! tpe{. !nccs. is nol

66

somc beyond. or somc law likc gcncralizalion. bul the scll'consciousacl iv i ty of rhe undcrsunding i lsel f (Pippin 1989: l l9) . This makcsthe lransilion liom object to subjecl easy ro explain: as thc objccr tumsout to b€'construcled by the sub.ject. it is nalural lhat we should nowtum from the tbmrer to the larier. and so move from consciousncss lo

' sclf-consciousness. Thc difliculty. however, is thal rhis readine aligns'' llescl soutlook closcly lo Kanl's (a fact Pippin happily ack nowledBes:

cf. Pippin 1989: lll. whcre hc chaructcnzcs thc chrptcr on torce as'the lirsr and mort sisnillclnt sl|se in lescl sl phcnomcnolosicaljustllicalion of rdealism ). This makes thrs reading ol the klnsilionconlenlious, as thrs Kanrian lreathcnl ol llcgel is nol universrllyacccptcd (.1. sr$n 1990, wrnenberg 199.1. K R \ltslphal 191]9. K.R. \ lenphNl 199]N) Morcov.r . cvcn i f i l is r igf i l lhat t lcgcl s c ld imlhrl !1 this point thc UndeAtandirs cxpcricn.cs only i/r.1/ should b.l lken rn I Klnl i ln sf i r i l (which on d mtrc rcr l is t rc ld ing is highlyconlcnl iuN). i l rs hi k, scc lhr l lh is cxplains the t runsi l ion to scl f -consc;ousress: rb. . . rs we hatc secn. al lh is poinl l le-{c l i r adopr ingth. sl.ndfoint ol lhe !!c as phenorrcnologlcal obsf^cr. and not of

'UndcAtrndins c\p.r icnccr only tv, / / ' . h is impl i . r t ion \ould sc.mIo bc th! l eon\chusnc\s i lsc l l docs nol l l lh is i r n) . Ihcn the t tunsil ron l ronl eonseiounrc\ \ l { ) \c l l -e, ! r \e i1{r{rc\ \ ( rnrol hc c\ fh incd inKanl l t ' r t . i , r is . r : r ,er l i / r r iod r l , , , , ! r , , \a( \ \ r l r r r n ' , , .ho$ Jcrermircs rh. Nor ld

A morc rcutr l rerdirg s | lN!b1.. ht t r l . ! . r . $hfre $h.r t rnd.rpins l f ic l r rnsr l i (nr l lorr eon'crorJ." r ( , \ . l . rn\ .n,1, \ f . \ \ i \ n. t rshi l i I ronr rc. l jsnr l ( ) idcr l r \n. bur l i rnn / tu1,1 t ( ) / ) fu r , r ' . $hcrc in

THE OIALECT C OF THE OSIECT

lhcor/ i fg \e hr\c a ( lc l . (he( l \ r . \ , ) r ' lh( wor ld. rnd so rbslrrc ll iorr our fonlur r \ suhjecl \ , , rhe Nr l (1. $hercrs rn n! !et ie! l rc l rvr ly$c rcr , , n 'c wor ld and \ t ) nur ( \ ,acl ! .s r \ \ubiccrs i r rhe ccnrrc ol 'lhrngs (( r Kot i \c 1969: l7 S Sr. x lm l lxr is 1997: I . I l0 l r 'Thus.a nc$ jouf l rc) strns hrrc th. t r r . r i . r l rdrrn. \ ofs. l l : .ons. iousn.ssth! t hrs thcorct i .Nl ly--scr i tscl l on onc sidc. ) . l lcgcl l icqucnt lyconl tusls thc lheorr l real r rx l f r rc l rcr l r l t i ludes in thcse tcmrs (c1l LA:

I L pp. l l l 11, FN: I . .s l l15 7. pr ' . 195 205). whcrc in thc rhcorerrel l

] atr i tudc se hur. our ibcus on rhe obiecl , whi lc in rhe trucr icr l one sc' subordinrte llc ohic.l ro thc \rbi.ct: rl $c arc suppos.d to turlc

IHE DIALF(TIC OF THE OSIECT

between these two attitudes al lhis poiot of the Prercnenolop, thiswould then explain the shift from consciousn€ss (which, lik€ lhe lh€o-retical anitude, ;s object-orie ated) to self-consciousness (which.likerhe pracrical afirtude. rs subiecr-orientaredl.

It cenainly seems thal it is the theor€tical attitude that hasprcdominated in the 'Force and the Underslanding' section, and whichis apparently brought to griefwith the discussion ofthe inv€ned world.Hegel s characterization ofthe theorctical attitude in the lntroduclionto th€ second pan of he En.rclopedia lh;s Philosophy ol Nature)parallels the dialcctic oflhe PhenonenoloKr thus f^r, and helps shedsome lighr upon il:

In the theorctical approach (u) thc initid lactor is our with-

. drawing from nllural things. lerling rhem as they are. andadjusting lo them. In doing thrs we slan liom ou. sense-knowledge ofnarure. Il phyrics were bas€d only on perceptionshoweler, and perceptions were nothing but lhc evidencc oflhesenses, the activity of. natural scicntin would consist only ofsecinS, smclling, hcarins, clc.. so that animals $'ould also bephysicists . . . (b) In rhc second relation of things 1() us. lheycithcr ncquire thc determinarion of unrversality tbr us. or wehnsform lhem inlo something universal. The mo.e thoughlpredominales in ordinary percepiiveness. so much the morc doesthe nanrralness, indi!iduality. and immcdilcy of rhings vdnish.way. As thoughts inlNdc thc limirlcss multiformity of nalure.ils richncss is impovcnshed. irs springlimes dic, and there is atrJ,nt rn rh( DLD ul i r i (u l , ,ur . Thdr $hi( l ' i I nu L, i $a\ r ! i ' )

- r r f l - l r r . - .Al l . , l ,1I In rh( qu rrJJr, ' l rh ' .u!hr: I . s.nr dhLIdxnce. $hr.h shupcd i rscl l inr(J . rhousrnd intr iguing wondc.s,sithcrs int,) !rid li)rnrs rnd shrpclcss gcncrdlitics, whichrcscNhlc ! dull nonhcnr li)g lc) thth thcse delcrminalions areopposcd lo both trrctiell oncs. rnd sc rlso lind that the theo-retieal !fp(,rch rs in$rftlly sell-contradiclory. lbr it appears.tobring aboul lhc prccisc opposile ol whal ii intends We want loknow the nrturc ihat really is, nol something which is not, butinstead of lea!ing n !k)nc .nd .cccptinS il as it is in trulh, insteldof lakin8 it {s gilen. wc mrkc $nrcthing complelcly different

OT THE OsIFCT

oul of it . . . The theoretical approach begins by ch€ckinsappelil€, it is disinleresl€d. it leaves rhings to subsist in rheirownway, and thus immediarely displays rwo aspects. subject andobject, the separalion ofwhich is fixedon this sid€ andthat. Ouraim is rather !o Srasp and comprchend .arure however, to makeit ouB, so that i! is not somelhing beyond and alien to us.

(EN: I, 1246,2, pp. 197 8)

Much as he do€s in the Prenoneholop. Hegel he.e po.trays rhe theo-retical attitude as a 'srcpping back frorn practical engagcnen! wirhthe world, in a way lhat scts the subject to one sider as n resuh, lheworld as the subjcct cxperiences it is lost. and is replaced by lhe scien-tifrc image put forward by the theorisl. in a search for greater'objectivity . The lcsson ol the 'invened world . however. is thatconsciousness then comes lo feel that lhe nature ofreality is ungmsp-able, and a. apparently insuperable sgEqation occu6 bet\cen the

>ubject.rnd the objccl. F.ced wilh rhis brclkdown. consciousness natu-'_rally recoils from lhe theorerical atirude. and moles over 1() its

opposire. the praclical atrilude. Here the engagemenr of lhe subjeclwalh lhe obiecl is much more direct. as the subiecl once again becomesa bei!8-1r$e udu Dotjust a disinlcre(ed spccl.lor d/ it. so that lhe

-wo.ld regains its colou. oncc morc. Thus. thc tmnsition hc.c is whatone miShr expccr from thc Phorrnotu'lo\t

^s n fn/ ,(idli,d: hrlrn8

found that the scicnlilic lhcorist s nosrtrcn has cnded in incoherenceby alrempting lo lies the $orld rn ahslraction lrom ho$ rt appean l()us as subjects wilhrn il. eonsek)osnesr now secs the world as some-thrng rhat the sublecr crn cngrgc wrth dirc.lly through ils practic.lre lar ion ro i r . as nothirg hul r \chiel . l i r r i ls scl i cxprcssion.

Now. in thc /'iil.,n{)h ,/,\drk, llcgel nrnkcs clerr lhdl thcp.aclical rttiludc cdn rlso bc dclel()pcd one-sidcdly. as consciousncssno* secks lo mastea rhe naruflrl \,,orld (F.N: l. N2452, pp. 195 6).Likewise. in rhe Pr.'o,r(,,r,$ Hegel concludes the (onsciousness

chapler by waming thal in dispensing wi lh the two- l ier ! iew ofrealnyadopled by the theorelicrl attitrde, consciousncss may find thdl it hasmoved oler loo quickly to a sublcct-ccnlrcd conccption. in which itatlcmpls to lrivc !1 J./lrrrtnurnerr. r rcfleclednes$inlo{ellconscious of irsclf in ils olhemess (PS: 102):

THT DIAIECTIC O' TH€ O3]ECT

Ir is manifest rhat b€hind the so-.all€d cunain which is supposedto conceal th€ inner *orld, there is nothing to be seen unless wego bchind il ounelves, a! much in ord€r thal we may see, as thalthere may b€ som€thing b€hind there which can bc s€en. But atthe sarn€ tim€ it is evidenl that we cannol without morc ado gostraightaway behind app€arance. For this kno*lcdge of whal isthe truth of appearance as ordinarily conceived. and of its innerbein8, is itself only a rcsult of a conplex movement wherebythe modes of consciousness 'meaning , perceiving, and theUndershndins. vanish: and it will be equally €vid€nt thatthc cognition of shat enstiou\ne!! kno$ in knoving itself,requiresastill morecomplex movement. theexposilionofwhichis contained in what follows.

l0 l )

this complex mov€menl lhat H€8el now proceeds to lrace out.

chepte. 3 :1,u,,,,1,The dialect icof the subject

lPhenomenology,B. Self-Consciousnes,)

l i;I i11r ::,ltiriiil,

Mastership and s€rvitude

With the brcakdown ofconsciousn€ss, and the collapseof its purely objecl-centred theoretical attilude. we nowmove 1o sclf-consciousness. which takes up theopposing s|ance. by placing the subjcct !l thc ccntrc ofthinSs. As one might expecl, Ilegel wanls lo show thrtbotb atiitudes are one-sidcd: pul srmply, consciousnesswas one'sided because n ded io displace itsell liomthe wodd and take up a purely obje.tive stance. whileseli-(onsciousnc\s i' onc iiJcd bLc.d,! rl lries toimpose itself on lhc world kn sr.ongly. so thcselflworld dislinction colhpses and srlf-consciousncssis reduced to the mononless iaulology of: I am I"'(PS: 105). Hegel sels oul lhe problem here quile clearlyin the discussion of self-consc iousness in ihe third partof rh. Encf.lopedia (the Philoe\)ht' 01 Spnft)l

In consciousness, we see the iremendous ..U,Ier-ez.e, on the one side, of the '1 , this whollys/u//e existencc. and on lhe other side, of the

TIIE OIALECTIC OF THE 'UB]ECI

infinite variet oflhe world.It isthis opposition ofthe'I andtheworid which has not y€t reached a gcnuine m€dialion, thal con-slihrtes the linilude ofconsciousness. Self-consciousness. on theoiher hand, has its finitude in its still quite absrracr self-idenrity.Whal is presenl in the I = | of immediate self-consciousness isa dilTerence thar !gs\,g'4A!t ro be, not yer a posited ot actuol

(ES: 9425,2. p. 166)

As with his prcvious discussion of consciousncss, Hegel attempls 1()bring out the one'sidedness of selt"consciousness by showing thar ilcannol properly rcsol!e thc dialeclic of universal and indi!idual. nolthis limc in rchtion to the object. but in relalion lo itself as {rrrc./.and lhe conccption il has of its own identiry.

Ha!ing iniroduced thc turn f.om consciousnrss to self-consciousness. Hegel feels able ro move from the 'arid forms andshapeless generalilres ofthe theoretical attitude which concluded hisdiscussionofconsciousness.toaconcept ionolnalurethal isonceagain'noisy with life (LN: I. $2462. p. 198). Thus, as sell-consciousnessbegins by interacting with the wo.ld at the lcvel ofdesire (as a p.a.-ttral mther lhan theoretical attitude), it finds the 'dull nonhem fog' hasIined to reve.rl x world leeming with lj!rng things:

Bur /,r rr. or r,l tr!.//. the objecr which ibr scll:consciousncssis the negalive elemenr has. on iis side. returned into ihcll

, lusl !s on the other srde consciousness has done. Through lhisrcdccrion inro irsclf thc object has becorrle Lrlc. Whal sell-

i (ons.i(Nsrcss dislinguishcs frorn itsclfrs hxling nrrr8. also hasIn ir. In so lar rs il is posiled as b.urg. not Drcrcl! lhc charuclcrol s.nsc-ccturnly and percepnon. but il r\ heing thal is redectedirro rtscll: lnd rhe object ol rnnncdirlc derrrc is a /nrra,,rr8.

{PS: 106)

llcgel gocs on (, !r88c( lhrl scll-cooscnnrsrcss cannol be cen.in oli rscl f by s imply rdcnl i iy ins i lsel l wr lh rhis sor ld of | \ ing th ings.fbr in that world lhc.c lppclrs to bc t(xi liltlc room for .lny nolionol individualilyr whal malters at the lclel of lile is the aerrs. nolthe parlicular indivldual, so thal al rhis 1evcl. the l. as a particuld.

IHF DIALECIIC OF IHE SUSIECT

individual. does not count for rnuch. Self-consciousness thereforeconceives of ilself as more than a merely animal consciousness (cf.

PS: 108 9).

Desirc

Once the subject has moved to lhe level offocusing on ilselfqua indi-vidual. so thal n has itselfas a pure "l'for object (PS: 109), Hegclnow sels oul 1o show that il is no more possible fo. thc subjcct to findsatisfaction in irs p.actical relation to lhe world if it lries to do so'immediat€ly'than it was for ir to 6nd satisfaction in ils theorelicalrelation to the world through thr simplisrio model of serse-cenainty.At its mosr basic. thi!_[gctical relation takes the fbrm of .16rie, itrwhich the subj€cl exens nselfas a kind ofpure will. where nry snscofeslrangenent from the world is countered by the destruclion oftheobj;cl. and !o by a negation ofils orhcmess in a lilcralsense: Cerlainofthe nothingness ofthis othcr, it cxplicitly afnrms that this nothing-ness is.r/ jr lhc truth oflhe otheri it desrroys the rndependent objeciand the.eby gives itself the cenainty of nself as a rrrc certainty. acenainty which has become explicit lo. selt"consciousness ilsclfi, d,ohje.lire ntnnq \PS: 109). Thus. wiih desire rhc subjccr lltcmpts ropresene its individualiry by neSatins lhc wo.ld around ir. The difil-culty with desire. howevcr. is thar it inlohes thc deslruclion of iheobject. bur once lhis object is denrcycd. thc subiect has noth'ng overwhich to cxcd ils contrcl lnd so demonstrale its ihd'viduality. Tbesubjccl musl therelirre lind ilscll anolhcr dbtecl lo destroy. so lhcpr,r($ (rr b(Ern dlJ,n. l ( . ,Jrnt ro rn oh\ iouJ) umpl) r (8rAs.'De'rr( anJ rhe

-( l r ' -crnJrnr) . 'hr . , rnJLl rn i r . . BrJlr l i (d l ron. dr( (und,- Y" ' f '

rioned by rhe obiect, li,r scll:ccnlinty comcs liom superscding thisother: in orde. thal this supersession cln take place,lhere musl be thisothc.. Thus self-consciorlsncss. by ils negalive relation to the object.is uDdble ro supersede i1i n rs rc.tlly because of that relation thlt ilproduces the obJecl again. and ihe desire as well (PS: 109).

A1 this point. Hegel otlers one of his charactcrislic preliews'.where he rells us how ultimately rhc dimcully fitc€d by desire will beresolved. This willhappen whcn lhc single self-conscrousness sees thewodd as conraining orrel sell-consciousnessesi lbr if, seeinS that

OF THF 'USITCT

others are selv€s like it, and in thereby recognizing itself in them. thesubject is no longer iiiced by sheer othemess, where only by n€gat;n8the world can the subj€ct 6nd itself in it. As Hegel makes clear.qhen rhe .€lf-con'cio'\ q'bjecr i. ahr- h s r:qLfiltlc othe' . wcqr l l ha\c dr i \ed dr r t lccbivc tumins-poinr in rhL' joumey otconsciousness fhroush the PhetunenoloKt. aftet which consciousnesswill b€ capable ot a much mor€ balanced oullook lhan has beenachieved hilheno:

A sclf-conschrsncss. in bcing an objecl. isjust as much'l as'object. Wilh rhis. $e aheady have belbre us the Notion of

&,,/. Whal slill lies ahead ibr conscioushess is rhe experienceofwhat Spirit is this absolute substancc which is the unity ofthc diil'c.ent indcpcndent selfcorsciousncsscs which. in thciropposilion. cnloy pcfccl frccdom !nd independence: lhe l lhrlis We and the We lhar is l . lr is in srll--consciousness, in rheNotion of Spirit, thal conscrousness firsl finds its luming-point, where ir leaves behind il lhe colourtul show olthe sensu-ous here-and-now and the nightlike void of the supeBensiblebcyond. and ncps out into thc spiriturl daylight ofthc prcscnt.

(PS: l l0 l l )

Al the beginning ollhe seclion lhal follows this passage, eDtitled'lndcpcndencc and Dcpcndcn.c of Sclf Consciousncss: Maslcrshipdnd Scni ludc . l legcl cont inucs wi th his prc! iew , spcl l ing out wh. lth is nrutul l recosnir ion invol lcs (PS: I l l l : ) Lssenr ia l ly . cnch sel f -con\ci()usness nnrsl lcknowlcdgc lhc olher as ur xulonomous subjcct,' !s \o,ncl l rng lhrr h i rs rr indepcndenl r \ rncnec ol r rs osn. $hrch.lhcrlo,.. rr c.trnot !rh^ lor ils owr nu''ll)scs. rl th obiccl does nolol r ts o*n o. .ord do $hrt r l r . l i rn docs r , , r t ( l ,S: I l l ) ( thc Kant i rnceho.s ol lreNlrng fcoplc rs cnds in Ih.nNcllcs tulhcr than is mclnsrrc unrrnrkrhle)r nrForcr. erch scl l :conserousness musl !1so rqhzclnd aeeepr rhrr r r \ wcl l -hcrng and cnl l r ) ! \ | suhiecl is bound up$i th hos | l rs \ccl h, rhc olhcr scl l -eolscr( 'urncss (which rs whereHegelian rccognitrnr drrlt.s liom Krnlirn rcspccl ). Il lhs recogni-tioD is recip()cal, llcgcl rrgu.s. th.n n.ilhcr sidc need fear thai bydcknowlcdging thc othcr lnd Lcling itsclf bound k) il (in a relationship l ikc lo!c, lbr cxlmplc) i l hrs losl i lsc l l ' (PS: l l l ) : L ich sccs

!

THT DIALECT]C OF TI]E SU3]ECI

lh€ orrer do the same as il do€s: each does ilselfwhal it demands oflhe olh€r, and therefore also does what it does only in so far as theorherdoesihe same. Action by one side onlywould bc useless b€causewhat is to happen can only b€ broushl abour by both' (PS: I l2). (Forfurther discussion of Hegel's conception ofrecognition, see llonneth1995:3 63. SieD 1979. wi l l iams 1992.)

fhe lih and death sttuggle

Hegel makes clear. howeler. that with this oulline account of tullydeveloped.ecognition he is anlicipaling. comnenling that Wc havenow to see how the process oflhis pure Nolion of recognilion. oftheduplicatins of self-consciousness in its oneness. a/?ea^ to self-consciousness. ,1rliffr, it will exhibit the side ofrhe inequality ofthelwo. or lhe splitting-up oflhe middle tem inlo thc cxtremes which. asexrremes. are oppos€d to on€ another. one being only rcL\lAni.etl, rheother only /?..rg,i:ina (PS: l12 13, my 6rst two emphases). Thus.}t lhe stage we have reached, the single self-conscjousness is nol yctablt to achicve a stable sense of its own idenrty in the lace of rhcother self-consciousness: as he puis the problem elscwhere. 'ln thisdetermrnalion lies thc trcmendons contradiclion rh.l. oD thc one handithe l is wholly unive.snl. rbsolutely pcsNsive. lnd inlcrrupredlby no l imi t , is rhe universal r ( r l l mcn. Ihe rwdJmutual ly relaled selves lherelbre consrr lur ing one dcnl i ly . consl i tut ing. lso kr spclk. onc lighrr rDd yci. { rhe othcr hand. rhcy are also rwolsclves nsidly rnd unyic ld ingL" conr ior l rng ! rch othcr. each ex. ist ing\as a reflection-inklscll: rs rbn)lurcly disrirct tion {nd impenetrablelby the othea (ES: .s.11{}2. tp l7{) l ) . thus. }c oncc again hrve alrenslon bei l leen univcrsal i ty ( thc whol ly uni lersr l l bclonsins roJborh sell-conscrousnesses) and indrvrdualily (the sense thal cach sclf- Iconscbusness has ol itsell as an lndividual iundamentally distincl Iliorn thc olhcf sclf'consciousness) Hegel s aftmpt lo bring oul lhedifliculty this crcalcs for selt_-cons.iousness in achic!ing a stable sell-rdentlly rs one of thc most wcll known and influcntial scctions olrhe Phtnotu.nalo&r: unfonunltcly. howcver. it is open !o conflictinSinterpreulions. For. allhough I rs clerr that thc dialeclic lakes us from'dcsrc. lhrough lhe lllb and dealh slruggle. lo maslership and

THI OLALECTIC OT THE 5I, /BITCI

servitude. it is not so obviorls exaclly what argument is meant tounderpin the transition from desire lo 'the life and death strug8le'.

On the simplest inlerpretation, lhe argument is as follows (cf.

Shklar 1976: 28). As we have se€n, the difficulty with desire is thatthe subjecl laces a conrinual progression. as the deslruction of lheobject leads ro the re-eme.scnce of desire. Tbe subjeci then tumstiom objects lo othcr subjrcts in order to resolve this difficulty: forothe. subjccts do not nccd to be desroyed in order to be madcsubscRicnt kr rhc {111, so they can bc assinrihled withoul ledingro thc contradiction ofdesire: 'On accounl oflhc indcpcndence oflheobiect, lherelbrc, Iself'consciousncssl cxn nchicvc salisfaclion onlywhcn lhe objecl itself effccls lhc ncgalion wilhin ilsell . . . Sincethc oblect is ur ils own self neSalion. and in being so is al lhe samctimc indcpcndcnl. it is consciousness . [Thusj li.4{?,r.in6,e\f,drhitr5 its tttislttlit)n t,rlr in u'tothct rlr{r,J.knlrft5r'(PS:109 l0). lloweler. as I try to ;nrpose my will on you. so you will tryro impose you. will on mer we sill thcn cnd up in conflict { lhe lileand death struSglc ). *hich is only .esolvcd \hcn one ol us concedesdeleal . and succumbs 1o lhc wi l l of the other. hence becominS. s lave.whilc thc viclor bccones the masler.

As dn argumenl. lhrs has a cenain plausibilitv: but il sccms lhrlIlegel had somethrng more sophisticalcd in mind. ds il lervcs out animportanl aspecl of lhc tcxl . 1n pr icul i r , i l lcr \es oul lhe s igni l icanceolia4*it&a-4s lhe sourcc oflhe struggle. rather lhan./.ur.: lhal is.it rppccrs thrr ir is nol bccrustfaii rryrng b uke you sublecr to nrr"tr ill rh.r $c cnd up fighlinS, but because I ani seekirg to secnre recogDirlon lionr you. shere rhi\ nreans that | !!rnl you lo s.. mc rs Nnother\ubtccr ( l i t r sh,eh l rnrng )ou i r ro . vchi l lc l i i r nrv lcsi .es is nei thcr

rcph..s r l . ! r . rs lh. out look ol sclLconsc(Nsnc\s. bc(use n has real-i?.d rhlll rlcsr.. rs conlrrdrck)|'v- : rr hofcs k, lnxl in rccognition a idnnofprr(rexl sel l hcrrg lhr l rs Inorc rcr l , /xhl l j lhus. {hcn He8el s lysthrt [s]c l l -eorserbf . \ \ . \ ln\ in nt l l i t r lsc l l $h.rr , .nd by lhc fdclthal. il s, e\ists lar ntrothcri tbt is. rt cxists only in bcing ackno\-ledged (PSi I I ll. hL rs hcr. lrkcn k) h. intftdueing ! new slep in thedialecr ic, wherc r .cogni t i (nralhcr thrn thc inrposi t ion of !v i l l throlghdesire h.s hcconrc thc go{ lo l consciousncss.

75

THE OiALECTIC OF IHE SUBJECI

Even iflhis .eading is accepted. however. there is sti room fbrdebate over how the life and death srruggle bcrwccn difte.ent subjectsis to be u.derstood. On one view. rhe explanation is comparable to theexplanatjon we ga!'e above on the des;c account: namely, while I wanryou to recoEnize me. I do not want 1() recognize you, as this seems tothrealen my individuality .rnd/o. freedom. so we are inev'rlbty ted intoa bahle forrecognition as etuh t.ies to wrest rccognirion from thc orherwhile giving nothing in rc1um; clenrually. this bahle is won by onesubjccl or lhe othc., who lhen servcs as nasler ro lhc other as st.vc(ct Findlay 1958: 95). As we have sccn. Hegel ernphasjzes rhis lrckofmutual recognition d rhc outsel: Al 6rst. Irecognirion] wi exhibjtthe side ofrhe inequality ofthe two, or rhc splitting-up ofrhc middletem inlo thc cxlrenr;s whic6. a! extGnres. arc opposed to onc !nothe..onc being only r..ryn/:./ thc orhcr only r..oa,Ei,s (PS: II2 ll).

Ho$ever, whilc agarn this ifgunrent has n ccrtain plausibitiry.on lnolber line ol inlcrprclalion it rppcrn defecrivc as a reading oflhe rcxt. bccause il nrisscs out anothcr imponanl rspcct of Hegel.sdiscussion. which is the sianificance he givcs lo the l-act lhll in rhe liteand dealh stngSle. individuals show lhemselves rs witLng ro tb.feitlhetr lives Thc contrast may be put rs lbllo$s: on thc prevrous rcrding.risking one s lilc is merely a sidc cftecr (as rr wcrc) ot thc lack otmutur l recogni t ion. whcrc thrs lcads to r srn,ggic in $hich t i l i isjmperi lcd. whi le on thc rcading $e rrc nos consr( tcr in8, r isk inr one 5liie as lhc rtzro"rAr lh. strugllc irsclll

Hos cdn this blrl On llis r.rding. rhe !n$v$ is thal in ordcr toachjele recognilion. I nNsl sho$ \ou rh l I rm ! subjecl nnd not Nmc.e l iv ing lh ing; burr l thoulh crch ofus tno$s lhrr we are subjecrs,sc nccd ro convintc rhc br|l; rhll qc {r., lbr orhcNisc we may bcsccn xs nrerely lrvinS crcrturcs heling in sub]ecrhood, lnd so bil lobe granlerl thc recognition wc require. As Srnre puts ir: ro the extenlrhat the Othcr apprehends nrc rs bouDd ro I body ald imni:rsed jn /4i.I anr mvsell only z, Orl.,. ln order to makc mysclf recognized by thcOther, I mun risk my own lill. lb risk one s lifc. ur tact. is lo reverloncsclt asnot-bound to lhe objeclivc form or t0 any dctermined exis-lence as.orbound to life (Sanre 1958: 2:l7i cll also Kojdve 1969:.{0 l . I ,ukuyama 1992: 150 2). Thus. on this reading. lhc requ;ementon each subiecr to rlsk ils lifc is the rcnson ibr the lili and death

THE OIAIECIIC OI THE 'UBJECT

struggle. rather lhan the lack of nutual recognition, as €ach mes bshow rhe other thlr it is not a'mere' livin8 cr€lturc.

Now, textu.l suppon fo. this intcrprclstion can b€ found frcm

rhe followin8 pa\$8cs:

lolnc individual is confrcnred by another individual. Appearingrhus immediatclyon the sceoe, they are for one anolher likeo.di-nrry objerls, t ./4par.&r, shapes. individuals submerged in lheb.ins lor immcdiacy] of ry'" for thc objtcr in its immediacyis hcrc dctcmined as Life. They arc. l)r..r(, d/r./. shapes ofconserourncss which havc nor yer acconrplishcd the move'nentofabsolute rbslraction. of r@ting-our all immctlialc bein8. ando! bcin8 mcrely lhe purely ncS.rive hcing of self-idenlicalcorsciousncssi in other words. they hnv! not as yet exposedthemscllcs ro each other it lhe lbmr of purc bcinS-for-seli or!s scll-conlcrousnesses.

(PSi l l l )

Here, H€gel appcar" to b€ claimina th3t the most basic wly for a subj€ttro demonstratc ils stalus as a subject to another, an'l hence to achicvcrecognition for ils subjecthood. is lo show that it is prcparcd to sac.i'fice its cxiste.cc ns an object: lhat is. to shd* lbcl n i$ prcpatod rogive up i is l i l ! :

'lhc prusrntrlion ol itselil how$cr. as llrc purc abslraclion olscll-cons.iousness consists in showing itself rs tlrc pure nega-oon ol ns objcclrle mode, or rn showrng thal il is nol lttachtdk' rnr ' ipccrt ic.rr r r r?. . , nol to the indtr iduul i ty common toc\rsrcncc ! \ such. rhrt n is not ruachcd r , ) l r la Ih! 's lhercla-rr ol lhc r*o scll-conscious udNrdr.h r! n'elr lhxl lhcy prolethcnNcl\c\ Jotl cach olher thrcugh r hll-nn.l-d.alh strugtsle.'lhc) rnrsl cn8a8c in this strugglc. li)r lhcy nrust rarsc lhcrrccdrrnr) .l bfrog /r,. rr.r'J.115 k) lruth. h)lh rr thc case ol thcothcr rnd In rhcrr osn case. And il rs only lhri,Lrgh s|aking one slilc rhrl lirctlo rs rlonl and lhus il is pruved thal for self--conscn sncss, irs cssential berrrg is not 0ustl b€in8. not thein',.,r/,r/r. li)rnr nr $hich il lpperrs. nol ils subm€rSence In theeJ(pansc ol hlt. bul Bthcrlhal thdre is nolhiog prcsenl in it which

7A

THE OIALECIIC Of THC SUIJICI

could not be regarded as o vanishing moment. rhst ir is only pure

For tlegcl. it appears, a crearure rhar shows ir has knowinSty and wi -ingly risked its destrucrion 6 a livingfting lhereby difTerendares irsetffrom mcre animal life, and shows irsctfro be hunan. As he purs ir inrhc Phih8oph\ of Right I have rhcsc timbs and my tite onty in so lutcr / ri// t: the animal cannor murilalc or destroy rrself. bur lhe hunanbcrnS can (PR: 1j47, p. 7tl). (Ci also SEL: 22ti. .tElvery delerminacyby which llhe single beinS] should br Sripp€d he can cur away fromhimscll and in death he can reltizc his obsotute independence sndfrcedom rorl himselfas absolurely n€Sarivc cor,s!,ousness. ,

Howevcr. while the rcading we are now considerins has anadvmb8e over fic orhers rn doing jusiice to rhes aspecrs ofrhc rexr.it h.N thc disadlantaSe of makinS rhc arSument open to an obviousobjcclion: nrmely. if whar is requircd hcrc tb. recosniiion of mysubjecthdxl is rhar I risk my lafe. phy do I have ro tighr you? whycouldn't I show my lack ofconccm for nry br('toSicat narure and endrby risking my life in front of you in a non-conflicruat way (Junpingofl a clilt: or lishting wilh an.ninrat, or cntistrns in a good causc)?ljvcn if il is righl rhar I must risk my trti xr rhis srlgc, why rhoutd Ido so lhrough altcmpling lo kill yout,

No{. an obvious lnswer nrighr bc kr txy lhrt whitc | lnr dnvenlo lry to risk

'ny life to shos nrysell k, hc I \ubicet in your eycs. t an)

dnlcn lo liSht you becausc I nilt sr'I you k) rcco8Dize me wirhou(8r! inB !ny recogrnion i r rc lun. Ibus. nt lnr ! my t i fc in t ight jng yougi lcs mc x food sly of rehre\rog both Dry !o! ts ! r once. This.houc\cr. nr) \€enl ! rJrhcr tkl hoc $n\ ot bri[8rn8 thcsc rqo til^trsol thc lli and death srru88lc r,rgcthrr. tr atso docs nol sccm to lil lhcIrirl \cry wcll tor. Hegelsccnrs r(' oller. drflcrcnr.nswer to lhequcs_t|,)n qh! lcomc lo rask my lifc lhrouSh rhc tifc and death srru!8tc.Ihc rclclant passaSe is as tbllows:

Thc rndividual who has nor riskcd hrs lifc may wetl bc rccog_ri/cd ns I /'.^oa, bur hc has nol afiaincd to rhe rruth of thisru.otnrtron ds an rndependcnt seticonscjousncss. Simrlarty. jusrrs cr(h srakcs his own life. v) c ch must seck rhe orher,s dellh,

'HE DIA L€CIIC O' IHT SUAJCCT

for il values the othcr no morc lhan its€lfi its ess€nlial b€ing ispr€s€nt to il in the form ofan 'oth€C, it is oulside of nsclf andmust rid ilsclf of its s.lf€rtemality. The other is a. inted4r€consciousness cntangl.d in a vari€ty ofrelationships, and it muslreSard its othem€ss as a pur€ bcinS-for-self or 4 an absolule

(PS: I la)

One inr€rpr€ralion ofthis psssag. might be lhis (based on the thoughtthat the life-risker'lalucs the other no more than itself): I have no.esard for myselfqua natural subjecr, so I have no r€gad for you quanatuGl subjecl. and I lind no rcasn nol to kill you in so far aslifc is merely pan ofyour b€in8 !s a nalural subject. However, whil€this interpretation misht erpbin why I sould be p'e2dred to kill you.

n does rcr explain why I should feel (r,,t/./e./ to do so. So ano$erinterprEtalion mighl b€ lhis: I only expect rccognidon fi'om you in sofar as I show mys€lfto be mor€ than an animal subjecl likewis€, I willonly recognize you ifyou show yoursclf b be lhe same: so I *illnorr€cognize you wilhout tcstinS you lo see ifyou are worthy of rtcogni-tion, and thc *ry to do this is ro put your life in p€nl md se€ how you

bebave (ci Kainz 1976:88.'The ego musl accordingly s€t itselflo findproof; it must "t€sl'th€ alt€r-e8o toadjudicat€ the pres€nce offreedom.And rhis tesl will inlollc thc nc8ation. disrcgard. and destrucl;onof life.'). This lhen €xplains why subjccts fisht €ach olh€r: each isDreDared to slake ils lilc. while each scts oul to lest lhe olber. so cachwill anack the olhcr. while each will respond by dsking its life.

Put in schem{ic lerms. wc have idenlificd lhrce differentlccounts ol-the trrnsitron liom dcsi.c to the liic rnd dealh struggle i

A: dcsirc -t inrNsc t,ill on objccr\ r inrposc will onsuhjccrs J (:lch lrirs l(' imposc sill on rhe orher J life anddc.th srrugglc hrtwccn subjccts

B: dL'sirc + Inrpos. sill on objccrs J nxr\c liom dcsre lo one-sidcd rccoSnir('n i lilt and dc lh \tru881c. rs one subjec( seeksto ad recognrlion liom oihcr wilhout 8rling lnylhang in retum

c: dcsirc r rmposr wrll on obJecrs J move ftom desire torecognition + rccognrtion by other requircs stating life. and

r.coSnilion of oth.r r€quires r.srinS orbcr for willingncss rostatc life J lifc and d€3rh srrus8le

As well as havins diferEnl sructur€s, lhe!€ accounr! also hav. rarh.rdiff€rent implications regarding the timiialions of sclf-consciousn€sslhst H€gel is rrying lo highlighr ar rhis sra8e. thal lerd ir inro the tifcrnd death slruggle. Undc. inlerprctation A. self-consciousness islimited becsus€ n rears subjects as ir rrealed objects, and so r.ies to'n€gate them. Under inlerprelation B, self-consciousness is limilcdby the fact that il is unable togra rccognition ro other subj€crs wirhourf..ling that its own autonony is uDdermin€d. And under interDrctarionC. self-{onsciousn€ss is limited b€caus€ it Rnds it can only show irselflo be a selfby risking its life. b€cause ar this slag€ in the emergenceof the s€lf il lacks any olher resources for doing so: .ln a primirivcsiluatron the only way I can demonsrr.ic my indep€ndence from myanimalbeing is show that it is norhing lo me: I musr risk my lif€ in rhecyes ofrhe olhei (Bemsiein 1984: l5t ct ES 64122. p. 172, whereHcSel hims€lfsays that rhe srruggle for recognirion can onty occur inthe nalural state. where men exisl only as single. xcpararc individuals .whercas in sociery pmper individuals can show rhcnrsclvcs lo bc'wonhy of this recognition' by showing thrm$ltcs nr hc nrtionalsubjccts by obeyins thc la$. filling a posr. folk wiru t| rra(le. or orherkinds of social activitvl.

lf. however, we adopl rnterprcr.rr(D ( irs lifirn8 rhc lcrt Droreeomplclclylhafl the orhcroplions w. h.!c cdn\(icrcd. rh.rc is noncthc-lcss somclhing ralhcr unsdtislictory rhoul rhis inlcrprcl rion s line onlh.8rcunds l-or the difficulrics lirced hy sell-consci,nrsncsscs ar lhisrh8ci namcly. thal lfic social ordcr is kxr linritL.d t,) alk)w rccoSnilionro(r .ur srrhour 0re nsl o l - l r l -c l i t r , upun! lno$ the( l i r lcc l i l j hasbcrndrrlcn by $nne son of.rnr.,r)/rdl onc{rdedness or tensioD. hur undcrIntcrpn.hlion ( il is drilcn by the l:ct rhlt sell-coNeousncss isopcrrlrnS In r 'prin itile situaraon . which would scclkn lhc Hnd of./?es,rul dragno5is sc halc sccn h(hc o.

Now. n may be lbr lhis reaen ihat in a later discussron ot thefffa rnd dcath struggle in rhc En.t.lotltliu. HeSel sccms to rc\'cn rormlcthing mor€ like interpretanon B. where thc lilc and d('arh srrua8le|' srd k,l{lc placc bccause .ecognnron at rhis sra8c is onc-sdcd lhar

TXI OIAL€(TIC OF IXE 5USIfCI

80 8l

TH€ OIALECTIC OT IHE SUSIECT

one-sidedness is explained through the limrted notion ol freetlon opef-ative here: namcly, rhat ifone subjecl recognizes uother as a subjeci,ir lakes this lo undeminc its freedom. and so is unwilling to grant this

It is slill lh€ case lat lhis poinl in the dialcctic] thal in lhat I

recognize another as being free. I losc my freedom. At lhjspresent standpointwe have lo completcly forgel the relationshipswe ar€ used to thinking about. lf we speak of ri8ht. elhicaliiy,lovc. we know lhat in lhal I rccognrze the others. I recogni^thcir complete peronal indcpendence. We know too that I donol suilbr on this accounl. but have validity as ! frcc being. thalin thal the olhers have righls I have then too, or thal my riShlis also esscntially thal of lhe other i.c. lhnt I am a liee pemon.

and lhal this is essenlially the slmc !s the olhe6 rlso bcingpe.sons wilh righls. Benelolcnce or love does nol inlohc thesubm€rgence of my pe.sonalily. Here. however. lhcre

's as yet

no such relationship, for one aspecl oflhc dctcrmination rs ihat

ol my still bcin8. as a liee sell-consciousncss, an immediate andsingle onc. ln so l-ar as lhe immcdidtc singLrlanly ol my scll_

consciousness and my tieedom are nol yel separated.l am unlblcto surrcndcr anylhing of my p.nicularily without sunendcnngmy iiec independen.e . . [S]cll-consciousness at rhis nandpoinl. . . must res;st rccognizing an olher as a trcc bcing. jusl as. onlhe olher hand. cdch musl concem nsclfuilh cliciling recogni-l ior wi th in lhc olhcis sel l -consciousncss. bcrng posi led as rnIndcfcndcnl bcins. ITlhc s inslc scl l l i \ nd' l ablc to bcar thcolhcr 's being indcpend.nl ( ) f i l . so lhrr rhc! nc.cssNri ly dr i f i ink)r nnr88le.

l l lP \ \ . l1 lZ. tp. 77. 79)

l lcrc sc hr!e n, ! t r t lhrnB mtrc l ikc x co ecprrol l ln i l r l ion br ingingrhoul lh. l r l r nnd dcxth s l ru ls|c. l i , r {ch s. l l ' .onscrousncss hkes nIhrt recogrxi,D ol lhc lfccdonr ol rhe oth.r thir'rt.ns ilr o{n lieedotn.in so lirr rs rl rssunrcs lhrt rc be lic. rs lr, bc rblc lo rgnore cl.inr\made on nr. by olhcr IndrvidLr ls. and k) lcl c\rclly as my egoislicdldes;es { my pinicul n(y )drclxtL. l l is l lcScl s aim io show lhal bolhrhesc assunrpr ids arc nrstrkcn (c l l PR: \ 15. pp. ,18 9), in a w.y lhat

a2

THE DIALECTI< OF THE 'U3]ECT

slf-consciousness musr come lo accepl if ;t is to move beyond rhe

'mpasse that leads to the life and death srru8gle. (Cf. also PRi 957,

p. 87. where Hegel states thal what 'gives rise ar rhh stage to thett/uaste Jor rccognitk'n and ofthe .elationship ofbr.llhip and seni-/lr.tu is the as yet only immediate consciousness off.eedom.,)

Master and slave

llowele. the transilion from desire to the lifc and dealh srruggle isundernood. the rransirion f.om he.e to masrcrship and sewludc jsmore srraightfo ard. as it brcomes apparenr lhal lhcre is somethingdeeply unsalisfying about the lifc and dealh slrugglc as a means ofachreving recosnirion in the eyes of thc other: fbr eithcr the subjeclsucceeds in killing lhe other. in which clsc there is no orhcr subjectlo do lh€ recognizing. o.lhe lirst subject is killed. in which c.sc theirsrlflood is losl: This lrial by death, howevcr. docs away with the mrhwhich rlas supposed h issuc lrom il. and so. roo. with the cenaintyol self gencr.lly. lbr iust as lilc is rhc dl,rdl se(ins of consciounncss, rndependencc withour absol]tc negdriviry, so dealh is the rdnlrdlncSalnntof consciousncss, negahon !vithout indcpcDdence. which rhusrtmnrns wlthou( thc regui .cd s;gni i icance of .ccogni t ion (PS: l l .1) .As soon !s this occurs lo scll--consciousness. ir givcs ut its struggle loappcar as ! subicet in ihc cycs of th. oth$. l d hencc irs slruSlle to'8o ,rec . and so bccomcs I sh!..

(hcc onc scl |conscrousnes\ rcr l izcs thxt l r r 'e rs rs csscnt i . l tor t rs ture \c l l -consciour jcss (Ps: I l j l . lnd so gr\c\ up lhc l j l t anddcrlh struggle. rl atpcrrs Nl lir\r lhrl lhc rwo scll .onsci('uiress cant ios r t l r in ! k lnd ol cqui l ihr ium. {hcn the onc l f i r t hrs given up lhc\ t ru88lr is the s ln le lnd lhc orhcr r \ rhc rraner. lhc n[srer can now\hdw himscll to be a subiect nr th. eyes ol the shve. nor by nskrnghrs lil!'. bul by cxcrcising power ovc. thc slave s body. lhe !cry thingth{ rlirvc wxs nor preparcd to losc in thc struggle. At the s{nrc timc.lh( uxst$ c n o\crco'nc his estrangenrcnl fnnn the world nol sinrpl!,hy lry'n8 to desrioy il (which sas the only possibiliry at lhe tet'et of(lcsrrc) bul hy setrng the slalc to work on I

Ilowcvcr. flegcl quickly scls out ro demonstratc lhar lhis appa-.cr l s l i rhr l r ly is i l lusory. He begins by porntrng oul rhr t rhhough thc

8l

THI OIALC<II( OF THE 'U6I 'CT

masler has shown hims.lf lo bc a subjcd in th€ eves of the other, at

is not clear bow he ctn vicw this othcr any diffcr€ntlv fiom an obJcct

id so far as lhe slave (like any objccD is a mer. inslrun€nt ofhis will.

and so i! is hard for hiln to maintain lhat any rEcognilion has b€en

achieved. So. ahhough on thc onc hand 'thler€ . is ptEs€nt lhts

momem of recognition. viz lhat th€ lslave] consciousness sets aside

ils own being-fo.-sell', on lhc olhcr hand because what the bondsman

dGs is really rhc aclron ofrhe l(,rd . [r]hc outcome is a recognrlron

that is one-sided and uncqu.rl (PS: 116) At lhe same time, Hegel

argues lhat contrary to iniliul spptarances. rl is the slale that 'will

withdraw into rlscll and bc lransformcd inlo a tuly independent

consiousness (PS: ll7). Thc lir't sicp. Hegelclaims, comes through

the erperiencc of lear with "

hich (s sen itudc began: in this lh€ trdn-

sitonness oflife was brought homc lo the slavc in a way that lhe master

has nol comc lo l€€1. so it rs lhe masier and nol the slave who has thc

mosr 'immediate .elalion$hip lo his naluml existeDce Likewis.

ihmugh his work for the maslcr. the slave is forc€d lo sel asidc his

own desires. and rhus findr himsclf no longer dnv€n by them Mosl

inponanlly of all. HcSel argucs. '$rou8h work . the bondsman

becomes conscious ofwhar hc truly is (PS: I|8) This is b€caus€. in

creating things nol for hims€lfbul for the masler. he is forced notJust

to consume thinSs. but rath€r to labour on them whilc l€aving them 'n

exislcnce. As a rcsull he iinds that hc cnn leale his mark on thc world

in u way thar is ldsrinS: ThrouSh this tediscolery of himself bv

himseli: thc bondsman rcaliTcs lhal it is p.ecisely in his wo.k wherern

he s€e'ned k, huve only.rn rlienatcd crislencr lhut he acquircs a mind

ol h is own ( l 'S: l l8 l9) l lcgcl is Fni .uhr l t jnsis l .n l lhat a l l ihrcc

ol rhcse clun)tor{ l t l r . scnrec. . d $ork on thc *or ld mun bc

prcscnl k,gcrhct lir lhi\ rc lllirlron kr oceur. r\.lhcNise each wiU bt

dcsftded (lirr L\tnrplc. lcttr $rll rcnr! rn*litl dnd mule unless lhc

subrecr .rn lin hnn\cll r8!rn th(nr8h sork. $hrlc work wilhotlt the

c\pencn.. ol lirr $rll nrLln r( onec rgxrn bccomcs an emply scll'

cenrercd lnr lud. ( l 's : l l9 l rThe slu\c therlli,rc conlc\ k, r drlliJcnt conception ofindividu-

ality from rhrl rdoptcd hy lhc mrslr ($ho hns not Sone much bevond

desire). In padicuhr. lhc sln\c no bnScr |ccs thc rorld as alien lo rl.

which musl lhcreli c b. ncgotcd rl it rs (r achiclc'ils unalloved feehnB

84

THt O tAt a( r tc ot t r { f tu! i tcT

of sclf ( PS: I | 8). Rarh€r, in his work the shve labouB for som.oo€cls€'s salisfaction, and so l€arns resp€c! for the ind€pcndcnl exisr.nceof th. objccts amund him, with which he finds hc can work. Con-sciousncas thus comes to a new conceplion of its€lfas an individul inth. world, by no* teaiinS lhat world as a placc to ehich il is anuncd,nol mer.ly because il has various skills thar makc il 'mssr€r ovcriomc things'. bul t'€cause i. possess€s univ.rssl tbrmativc activity'which give it univ€rsal power' oler 'the wholo ofobjective beinS'(PS: l l9) .

Stoicism, Scepticirm, and the Unh.ppy Coni(iourners

HavinS offered his inseniously insiShrfulaccount ofthe relarive posi-t'ons ofthe masler and rhe slav€, H€gel now movcs on to a discussionol a posjlion he idenlifies wirh Stoicism.

Sad<itm

Broadly sfEnking. the tEnsiliotr to Stoicism seems ro invol!c a rmnsi-lnn liom the one-sided pmctical nniludc ofdcsirc and thc maslcr. to ancs fom of theorelical attilude brou8ht rbout hy thc rnsights of theslave This theorelical anitude is a lind of tulid[|lsrr. for thc Sk)icst'(licvcd that lhe un;ve.se was goremcd b) l,lloi or fcnson..|nd rharmans rational soul is a f.agnrenl ol thirl dilinc /o.(d. nd so wccon uchielc wel l -bcing by l t tuning ourscl !cs to thc cosuic schcmc ol 'lhrnSs. {( 1. PS: I2 l . fs lo ic ism sl t r iDciplc rs th l | t consciousncss is abcing lhal /rt,lr. llnd lhlt consenNsncss holds sorr)cthing k, bc cssen,tirll) iDpo.tanl. or lrue rnd good only in so lirr rs it r/,irtr il to bcsrlch ) ln hringnrg in Sroicj\ hcrc. ind in lhc subscqucnl transitionslo Sccplicism lnd lheD ro ibe Llnhappy (onsci{nrsncss. il is not blelhot llcgcl is rcfcrina lo acru.l hisrorical eprs()dcs (!s hc will do latcr.In rcicrinS lo thc Frcnch RelolurioD. for crrmplc). lndeed. as manyconrnctrlrbrs hale poinrcd out. in mcnlioninS th t lhc Sk)ic aims !rfrclalom whelher on the lhrone or in chams . llc8cl surcly mcant us tolhank ol lhc lrte or 'Roman Sloacs Marcus Aurclius and tipiotclus. rhcformor an Lmp€rcr, the laner a (lib€mred) sl.vc. This lhen raisesth. qucst(n ofhow far the derelopment ofthd Pr.non.rol,$ more

a5

TXf OIAL€CIIC OF iHE SUB'ECI

Senerally should b. sccn in historical lerms, and how much il should be

rcsd as a form ofsp€rublivc hisbry. oflhe sort Hegpl was laler lo prc-

s.nt in his Lecturcs on thc Philosopht oI History. Ancmpts hav. be.nmadc to rcad the Prcnorn4olog,' lhis way (ct Forst€r 1998:291 500).but my orn vi€w is lhat thc two entcrpriscs should bc distinguished.snd that in this t.xt historical episodcs have the place ihey do b€causethey r€lat€ to panicular stagcs in the.or.dprral development lhal H€8€lis tracing out for consciousness. I think it would therefore be w.ong lotry to build up llegel's accounl ofthis (and other) historical €pisodcsinfoa historicisr reading of the Phcnonenolost

^s^whole. (For funhcr

discu$ion ofthis issuc. sec Hyppolilc l9?4: 27 50.)Noneihlcss. h may sccm tcmpling to treat the tmnsition liom

thc mast r/dave relalion to Sloicisn as pnmanly a histoncal tmnsi-tion. as HcSel seems lo give it a purely smio-political dionale, withhis suggestion that Sbicisnt aris€s as bolh the master and slave *eklo es.ape from the unsalisfacloraness of lheir sial *orld. as lheyabstEct from the r€nlity of thcir silualion inlo a world ofcontempla-live indiffcrcncc to rhear $urroundinSs:

This con$iousncss accordinSly has a ncS ivc anitudc ro$ard5the lord and bondsman rclationship. As lord, it does nol hale nslruth in thc tNndsnnn, nor lts bondsman is its ruth in the lord swill rnd in his scRiccl on thc contrary. whelher on the threneor in charns. in the utrer dlpendence ofits itdividual exisrence.rls aim is lr) bc lhc. nnd lo mainlain ihll lifeless indiffcrcnccwhich slcadlastly wilhdrtrws fron thc bustlc ofcxislcncc, alikel-ronr hcin8 nelivc as passi!., inh lhc simtlc essenlialily ofr l r (nr8hl . scl l -wi l l is rhc l rucdom whieh cr l runehes i lsel f in sornfprr l reul in ly ln( l is st i l l nr hon( l i8c. whi lc Sloic ism is thflrrcdom $hr(h 11{rys conr(s dircclly,'!t ol bondage and rerurnsInk' th{ pur. uni !L is l l i ty ( r l lhoughr. As x un; lcFal form of thcWorl( l -spinr. sk ' re isnr coul( l only rpt1.rr on lhc sccne in a l imcol uorlcAxl linr rnd hond fe, hul rlso ! timc of unilcrsalcuhurc qhreh hrd rarscd irscll lo thc l.\.1 of lhoughl.

(PS: l2 l )

It may sccm lio r thr5. lhal llcgcl Intcnds us to lre the move fmmthe mrstcr'shvc rchrn'nshrp lo Skncism in quasr-malerialisr lerms.

r f rc otat tcTlc of Tua su6rccT

as a form of consciousn€ss thar emerges in reqronse to its socio-political predicam€nt in a (doom€d) ancmpi lo come to tcrms wilh it(cf. Kojdv€ 1969: 53. who sp€aks of Stoicisrn as an ideology of

Thcrc are signs. however. that this is not ih€ b.st way to tak.H.gcl's pr(Xedur€ here. Ralher. il could be srgued rhat HcSel lhinksth8t wilh Sloicisln. consciousness is taking a new lum. and thal theinsi8hls needcd to make this tum possible are only availablc onc€consciousness has be€n lhrough th€ m.rster/slave dialeclic. In his inlro-duclory remarks to this seclion as a wholc. Itegcl siSnals lhat wh€nconscrousness moves ro rhe rationalism ofthe sroics, it has ffrived ara new a itudc to thc worldi for the Stoics saw reality as p€rmeated byrcason. so thar thought is seen as Siving us access to th€ rarional struc-tur€ inherent in lhings. which ar€ now no longer viewed as 'orhci by

we are in the preynce of slf{onsciousness if, a ncw shap!, acon$aousness which, as lhe infinitude ofcon$iousncss or as itsown pure motement. asaware ofils.lfas csscntialb(in8. a hcingwhich rri,tr or is a f.ee self'consciousncrs. Iir r.) rrtrl dd:snor mcm lo bc !n drrrzr'l l . but an 'l qhrch hus t thc samcrimc rhc significrnce of n'rrrrn, hcing. ol h rinr irsclf forobjecl. or ofreln'in8 nsclfro objccri\c h.i'r8 ir $rch I $ly rhtirils Jrgnilicancc is rhe ,.,r1. /or j.// of rhc corsci(nr$,.:ss li)rwhrch i l is l rn objct t l . . . In rhnrkins. ld, , t . . . bccnusc l lnrmt in . rn ,1, .?, but renuin s imply nnd solc ly in conrn)un()n { i thnryscl f . urd thc ohjecr. {hreh i \ lnr nrc lhe.rn,r / / , i / bcing. i r Inundi ! idcd uni ty nry bcing tu nryscl l r rnd m) lcr i ! i ty in conecp-lL[ l th inkinS is { n() !cmcnt wi ih in nryscl i

(PS: I20)

lhc scn$ thar '[i]n lhinkins. I dn /i... because 1 am not ir an rrrdr'ri tcry much what llcsel himsclf hop€s he will Eive us !s a rusult ofhr$ irltcmpr ro lind ralional etisfaction tbr the subjccr inlh. world (cl: Neuhouser 2m0: 20)i and to thc ertcnl rhat we havrlrflved at rhc idea thal lhoughr can help rhe \ubjccr find nsclf in rh€world. wc arc in the pres€nce of s€lf-consc'ousness in a ne* shapc .onc liNt rcprcscntcd by the Btionalism of Storcrsm. ( o

85 87

IHt OIALTCTIC OF THC 'USJECT

dominated by the assumption that thought contmsts to the world ofconcr€le cxperience. while s.lf-cons.iousness up to now has mer.lys€en thc world ss an other' to b€ ncgrtcdi bul lhe Sloic adopts a talio-.alistic al€nc€ that oflers a way oul of th€ difficullies thrl thesc

asiumptions havc gaused, by lrcating lhought as a vchicl€ throughwhich !h€ lubjccr ci& 6Dd its€ft i! thc rdorfd. 4mch r! HcgEf hims.ifbeliev€d. (Ci FL: $242, p. 37, 'Th€ signification thus aitachcd tothought and ils chaEcieristic fonns may be illustrated by lh€ ancienlsaying thal'roar aovems the world'. or by our own phrase lhar"Reasn is in thc world'r which means thar Reason is fte soul oflheworld rl inhabits. its immane pnncipl€. its most prop.r and Inwardnature. its universal. )

Now if(as this sussesN). Hegcl saw in Stoicism not just a 'slaveideology'. bur the be8inning of a ncw philosophical perspeclive tharwould uliimarely culminale in somcrhing like his own oullook, lheinlercstina quciion conceminS lhrs iransnion is whal giles il rts placein rhe dialeotic in conceDtual mrher than socichrstomcal lcrms? Hosdoes the tx)silion oflhe shvc (in panicular) lead con*-iousncss Inlothis new shapc'? The ans$cr, I think. can be s€en by rccrlling lleScl scharactcrization of thc slave\ positl()n: for rhe d^vc found throughworking with things in the world. that lhe world co{peratcs us he.rtempls to bring his ide$ lo rcaliTution nr his p.odtlcls. so lhal nirtureno lonScr sccms.rlien io ;r (!nd rhus as somclhin-! to bc nc8aied ). or!s somchos bcyond Ihoughl, lherchy nuking thc k;nd ol shii inourl,r,k nccdcd b lerd us inlo Slo.isnt. As Tar_lor h!\ pul il: ThrouSh$ orl- dr\erFhn. and lhc fcrr ol dcrlh. lhc sl.rtes hr\c.onE l.) r rccoS-rrtr ol rhe trni\crsal. ol the lllwcf ol cdnc.tturl lhoughl l'livlorl ( ) r5 I5?r lhus. i r is rhr nu\f s r* l rur .s{ ofhrnrscl l ach'e\ ingNn m{8hr rnro rh. $or l rnts ol th. qor ld rhr l n\c\ lhc dir lcelre ol 'eorrcrn^le\ \ oIr , , l pfrrP. l i ! ! I l .8cl k lcnrr l ic \ a\ skncisnr. wh'chhokl\ rhnl thoughr cMhl.s us lo bc rl orrc !rnh ihc r,rlion l univcrsc.

l fo{c\cr . rs l l ( 'gcl nul .s . lcrr ht \ Lrrht f t \ t r l Ih. I l ino^. t I 'h r \ r ' ln. shr lc k) nnrE c\rcnr hc sr$ Sloic isN rs hc; k, lhcBri(nrrhnrc $1tr|d-prcrurc ol |lrk) xtrd Airstotlc (lo whrch hrs ownsF.culxrrvc mronalisn w.N dccpl) rnd consciously indcblcd). henonetheless slw rn Sloi.a'n i liw ol r.ti()nalism thal was much moreabsrract and lirmulaic lhrn it hxd hccn in the brighl (;tccirn world'

AE

IHF OIALECTIC OF THE SUsII( I

(LHP: ll, p. 2la), malinS ils 'rccognition ofth. univeBal' inadequatc.Though histo.ically subscquenl to th€ worl of Plato and Arislolle,H€Bel therefor€ ponrays Sloicism as conccptually inferior and so (iophilosophical tems) as an exprsssioD ofntionalism in its crudc$ andmost primitiv€ tbrm: 'The selfsan€ consciousness that rep€ls ib€lfftorn its€ff becomes aware of its€lf a5 lhe elernenr ot heins-ii-itsellibut at fi6t it knows ils€lfto b€ this elem€nr only as a universal mod.ofbeinS in genenl, nor as it exists obj€ctively in fte development andproc€ss of ils nanifold bcing (PS: l2l). This is mther obscurcr buIHcgel inakes his cnticism clearcr laler in the s€ction. where he claimsthat th€ absmd ftinking of Stoicism . . . lums its back on individu-alily ahogether' (PS: l-10). by adopling a rationalstic pictur€ that istoo cut olT ircm rhc con(rur( *orld. Thrs thrnkrng con*-iou\nes\is thus only the incomplete negalion of othemcss' {PS: 122). Byofferins merely cmpry gcneralizations. the Stoics failcd ro rclate thl:irconccpl of reren lo individual paniculam: they could th.rcfore onlypmvd€ plaritudes. not concrete advice or knowl.dSe. As we saw inlhe Pretace. Hegel takcs mtionalism that is overly abst.nct and formalin thk way lo b€ easily dclmded. so rhar

'r can quickly b€come thc

victim of its anti-rationalisl cnncs.ln order 1o show how Sloicism tillls victim n, thcsccritics. llcgcl

brictly fcfers to rhr cenr.al cruxes that lirccd Storc thought, pnrlicu"hrly rhc dimculties lhc Sloics had in ideDriliin! uny cnrcaon lir truthin lhcrr epislemology, lnd in SivinS cont.nr lo rhc; !0gue claims incthrcs lhal'livrng if, agrccnrcnt or'rn lccordrnc. *ilh reason con$Ftutcs the gnrd hle. 'llul rhrr \cll-rdcntir) ol-thought rs again only rhcpurc limr in which norhrrs rs dcrermrned. Thc-lhrc and the cq'd.wrsdom and !irruc, thc gcncful rcms beyond which Slorcism cannol

8cl. rrc thcrclorc rn r gcn. l way nd doubl uplil|ng. bul sincelhcy cannol in l-.rcl pr(xlucc any expaDsioD ol rhc contcnt, they smnbccomc iedious (PSi 122). (As l lams 1997. l r p.417. n. 9 points out.his bkrSrapher Kad Roscnkranz repons lhnt in thc conclusion 1o hisunpubfished early work ihc .5rrr.,,t .4 Ethkul Lil. lltto2 o. tE/Jll.ll.acl chrmctcrizcd thc Roman Peace as lhe tx)r.{om oflhe world':

'.. SIL: l8l.) Ficed with rhese docrrinal diflicultrcs. Hegel arsues,

thc Sloics came to app€ar mercly dogm.tic in thcrr optimjslic claimsrcloftln8 the rarionalily of rhc wodd and thc happiness that could

THt DIAIECTIC O' TI ' l t 5U., ICI

come from conforminS oun€lvcs lo it in some abshct sense. Suchdogrnalisn n.tunlly Sives ris€ lo a form of more cntical {and ulli-mat€ly 4rd-ralionalislic) Sccpiicism.

Septti5rt

Al lirsl. the Sccplic s anti-rationalism may not b€ apparent, as he canclain hc is mcrcly aiming at lhe kind ol ti€edom of thoughf(PS: 123) thc Stoic wls looking ibr. since he is prepared to questioneverything, e!en thll rhere,i a world in which rational satisfaction maybe tbundr Insicad. lhe Sceplic belicvcs we can achieve a pcaccful.healthy. satisl crory lil-e by droppinS ralionllistic aspiErions and dis-plssionliely lbllowinS appcaranccsi In Sceplicism. now. the whollyuncssentirl and non-indcpendent characler of rhis othel becomeserplicir ,,r .r)rrdobr.$r rhc labstmctl ihought becomes the concrctelhinkin8 which antrihihtes the beinS of lhe world in aU lls manifolddeierminalene$. and thc tu:aativity of liee slf-consciousnes comesto know itsclf In rhc many and vnricd fonns oflifc as a rcal neg.tivity'{PS: l2.l). tlcgcl thcn arlcmpts lo sho*. ho*ever. rhat lhis fKdom otrhought is illusory: lor, oncc thc Sceplac has accepted ftal elerythinEcan bc doubrcd and thus that thou8ht cannot take us beyond app€ar-anc€s. he ends up declarinS that thouShr ;s in l-act powerless and tumsback to lhc sensrsi al rhc slmc trmc. by holdin8 that evcrylhing wcknow rs nrcrc ,ipr^..arancc. hc implicirly rcrains lhc idca thar iflhou8hrcould trk!: us bcydnd thc scnsible rcalm. it mishr lchrclc a hi8he. kindol lnorl!"dgc Ilcgcl thcrclbrc argucs thnr rhe rbnfulr ration!lismol thc Secpt ic in l i ter lc . . is in lo n dcspir i r i .g rnt i - r t ronalsm. as rhcseepl icxl consci(usr$s .on! in. .s i lsc l l thrr r r l rcnal satrs lact j (n is,rr t rNsrhl ! lor us.

I t r sonr fc\ l tc(rs. rhc r(rrc ol l lcscl s brcl anl lvsis of sccpr;('snr h.rL rs sur['\ng. rs rt rs npprrcnrl] n(trc critict'l md dismissivcol s.rplr . r tu th l r , rc I ' rs drseu\\ | t r r \ e lsc*hcrc. par l iculrr ly in hiscrrll c\srr_ ln' the titntnl.lrrulrtl t'l lhrr,ldl,rf. The Relntronshipol Sccprfefsn k) I'hrlosrph!" (18(,11. a

'n his later Lc<lurls n th(

I l t t , l o l I 'htLtvph ( \c. 'RSl 'nnd t- t lP: I l . pp. l l l 2) . In thesed's(ussDns llc8.l dru$\ nn nnporrrnt conhst between ancicnr and

'D(xlcm sccpt'crsrn. rnd $hrlc hc is hostilc to rhe lancr. hc is much

90

IHE D IAL T CTIC OI ' f i I

JUB'€(T

morc f.silive atDut lhe former, largely b€cause n was morc rhorouah-8oin8, and nol mer€ly iD rhe s€rvice of common-scru. dpat^9lphilosophy (as hc |ool Humean sceplicism to b€, panicularly a!doptcd by ns cerman propon€nts likc C. E. Schul?€. whos€ work istcvicwcd in rhe early scepricisn essay). It is lhi! conrrast thar cxplains,tiy.!. inrhe Phenonen lo&r. H€g€l trears scepticism as s (dcgcn-.Blc) typ€ ofrationalism wh€n focusing on its ancienl form, while ini!! mod€m form he is more inclin€d to see il as nn our-and-our ant!nlionalism with no such 'positive side (an anti-rarionalism rhrttllcr.forc resuhs in a kind of doBmatism. by seeing nothing lo ques-tron In rpp€ardnces).

Unhawy Cons<iousngt

Hrvin8 shown how the ancient sceplic comes ro feel rhal rhoughr isborh lll-powcrful and powcrlss. Hegel arSues rhar '[iln Sccpricisrn.@oiciousness lruly erp€raences ib€lfas intemally conhdicrory' (PS:126). k is this duality rhal comes ro bc rcalizcd in whar Hegel calls'd|G Unhappy consciousness': 'This ne* fom is, thcrclbrc. onc whichtr.'5 lhrt ir is thc dual cons.iousness of itscll as scll,lihcratin!.un hanSeable. and slf-ideniical. and as sell-b(wildcrins nnd scll-

Frvcnrng. and il is the awareness of this scll-contnrdrckrry nrlurc ot'fr!.ff. . . lTlhe Unhuprt Co,!Litusn!!: is thc conscrou\ c\s of $ll| | a dual-ni lured. merely contradictoN bcing { l 'S: l26t Ihur.ontheon. hmd.lhe lJnhap|y ('onscjousncss bcli.!cs thrt it is unablo l0 tran-!.cnd th. $orld of.hanreablc appear ners. bur on rhc or hcr h.nd holdsthrt rt cnn only atrnin siristacrion by so dorng: rathcr lhan hoping k)|chrclc sonre mcrsu.c of rrinquilliry or'unpcrturbedncss (d/d/ i./)by hving wnh appeatuDccs (!s thc Sceptic dxl). lhc U hntty( onrc(,usness js thcrelnrc painfuUy rwlrc o! ihc 8ap lhat cxisrsbclwccn itsclfas a contingent. linile indi!rdudl. rnd rculm ol ctcm l|,|d unrvcrsal reason. siDce the Sloic l)gor hls now bccomc anunlnowablc Bcyond. So. whereas the Storc hekl lhrt thc crpacity lbrr onal .onlL'mplatron bclongcd ro man. rl rs nos \('en !\ a capa(rl)lh.t bckrngi lo an alicn Beins (PSr 127). to a highcr form ofcoo*-R,usncss which rhe Unhappy Consciousncss now scb abole

OIALECTIC OT iXE SU B,.(T

Nonethcless, lhouSh the Unhappy Consciousncss has'projecled'this capaciry for rslional reflection onto anolher beinS that has th€ kind

of etemal ard unchsnSeable natule it lacks, Hc8cl interpr€ts Chrisl-

'anity tin a clcar rcferencc to the Trinttyr as an an€mpl to rctain

something oflhc Stoic picture of man s rdtional soul as a fmgment ofthe divine L,aos, whil€ making the sccptic's apparcntly unsttaidabl€'unchanaeablc' iruft somcthing that could r€latc to the human- Thus,

alrhou8h 'the lirsl Unchangeable [i.e. God] il knows only as lhe alienBeins who passes JudSemenr on the patticular individual , in lhe Sonit still sees that thc unchanscable isa form ofindividuality hke ilselt'.where 'the rcconcitiatktn of ils individualrty with thc unrlersal' is

symbolized by thc lloly Spirit (PSr l2E). Nonelhclcss. although rladi-

rional mcdicvr| ( hrislianity rerains something of lhccarlicr rationalistic

framework. il stresscs ihe liagility oflhe lnk bclwccn (iod lnd man.

and hcnce the unccnainty of any such reconciliation coming aboui.Ihis fragilny is symholizrd in the appareni continSency of Chrast s

binh. on which the hopc of reconcaliarion is foundcd: Ihe hop€ ol

becoming one with ir lthc UnchanSeablel must rcmarn a hop€. i-e.wilhout fulfilment and prcsent ftuition. for betwccn lhc hope and lhcful6lmcnt there stands prccisely th€ absolute conlin8cncy or infl€xibleindifcrence whrch lics in lhe very assumplion ofdclinrtc tbrm, whjchwas rhe ground ol hope (PS: 129). Thus. whi lc ( hr is l inni ty rn lh isform rs in some ruspccts rn advance on Sloicism and Sccpticism,

'nlhal il has rccogniled lhat il rs nor possiblc lbr lho!8hl to srmply tumxs back on in.liliduallry by abstracting liom thc conirngeocy. fini_tudc. rnd sullcnnS ol tuunl errstencc inl() r rcrlD ol rbst.n.t rhought.x (rll hb nor r_d nscn to thnt lhrnhng shcr.prnrcut l r Indr\r lorhl l r \ rcconci lcd s,rh l { r . r l lNShl i lsc l f IPS:l l ( l r : thc \ubt . . t lh.rrktrc I i ! l \ rh!r qdx ! rdr\ r lur l

'ubtcct . he r \ cul

olT t iom th! lxr(rr l ! (nRl ol o\rsrcne(. r \ -purc lhought. Thus.whi le r t th( bcgrrnlr8 ol thc .h.plcr $r th dcnrc.wanlcd ro i r ino\e , rs ndr!1( lur l r ty on thc $or l ( i . r l h s hcrc comc rouDdlo rhe opposrrc (ur(lcqully on.{idcd ) pcrspcc t rvc. whcrc rl now sccsi ls indrvidtrr l r t ! rs ! ! t l rnE in the w.ry ol i ts at lcmpts to achreleharmo.y wilh th( I n.hrngcrble As a rcsuh. llcSel argucs. allhoughthe Chrisrirn conrc($ncss In some rcspccls hrs a conccflrcn ofthisrcconcilialron. rt hi\ r dr\r(flcd D'clurc ol hos such rcconc'Latron

92

TTIt DIALE(I IC Of THC SUB'F' I

miSht o.cur. in its three id€sls ofrh€ Chrisrim lif€, a prayer. wo*,.nd pcnil€nc€. Hegel therefore criticizes each in rum.

As one might €xpect, Hcgcl is critical ofprayer as placing roomuch cmphasis on feelin8 at the erpcnse oflhoughr and rriionslreflec-tion: 'lllt is only a mov€mcnt ,o$'a'.t rhinkins, and so is devotion.Its ihinling as such is no mor€ thrn the cbaolicjingling ofbells, or amist of warm incens€. a nusical lhinling thar does nor 8et as far aslh. Notion, which would b€ thc sole. immarenr objecrive mode oflhought'(PS: lll). The devotcc seeks ro find communion wirh Codby vidue ofbcing a 'purc hean t but rhe d€volee seeks ro demonstmtehi! purity by declaring $at hc has not yet found Cod but is noncthe-lcss still dcvoled to the search. Devotion is thus the slruSgle of an.ntcrprise doomed to failur€'(PS: 132).

Hesel thcn considers the idcal of work, as the believe. lries tolcr!/c God through lrbour. Thc Unhrppy Consciousncss now has amrlrndictory anitude to the wofld on which il worls: on rhc one hand.mythitrg worldly has no signilicancc. as whar marrcrs is rhc C(xt whortmds abo\€ it; on the othcr hand. everflhing in lhe world is sancti-ficd as the expression of (;od'r narure. Litcwisc. rhc UnhappyCons(iousness als sees its own capac ies lor labour in I rwo-foldrvay: on lhe one hand if it can crcntc lnyrhing usin! rhcm. n is onlybccausc God allows it to do soi on thc orher hand. rl ilso sccs rhcsccaptrcilies as God-gi!'en. rnd so divinely ordrinrd. r'hLrs.lhough t\,o.k3ivcs lhc Unhappy Q)n\cr)u$r.ss irnf sense oi its uni(D wirh lheUnchanSeable. rn lnorhcr scnso jr mnkes ir l-ccl morc cut olT liom il:

The faci ihat rhc un.hrnlcrblc consciousn.ss tnoun.lt ,Jv.r.n,Lff rrs cmbodic(l hmr. while, on lhe othdr hnnd. rhcplnrcular indivrdtrxl .on\co||\nc\s sntr ,rd,rJ lfor rhc sinl.ic /{ri.J itself th. \rtrticlirnr of teing conscious ol irs t,..i-/,.r./.r.r. and nsigns thc csscnce ot ils acrion not tr) rrscll butlo thc beyo.d. through thcse lwo moments of /., i'n,,r/ vtl-r?/rr.&r of both pans. consciousncss does. of coursc. g{in ascnsc ofrr i^ ,wi th thc lJnchanseahle But rhis uni ty is al rhesame tame affccicd wirh di!rsion. is asain b.oken within irsc[ond from n rhere emerges once more rhe antilhesis of ihcunilersal and the individual.

THE OIALECTIC OF THE SUSIECT

The difiiculty, Hegel argues. is that Unhappy Consciousness sees thalils hurnility here is false. for while ir treals lh€ world and its capac;ties as gifts from Cod fo. which it gives thanks. il als recoSnizes thatthese SiRs are a source of pridefirl enjoyment for ir: 'Conscious.€ssfeels itselfrh€rcin as a panicular individual, and does nor lel itselfbedec€ived by its own seeming renunciation, lbr rhe trurh ofthe mareris that il has trol renounced itself (PS: ll4).

From this sense of unworlhincss. llcgel moves on to the lhi.drdeal o i p lnrrcrce. $herc rhe I nhapty ( , rscrnurnei \ r ie i rn o!er-come its hypocrisy: 'work and entoymeni rhus lose all lnrr?rrdl<ont.it and \isni/i.ut4, ibr if they had any. they would have anrbsolure beinS oflhcir own. Bolh withd.lw inlo thc; mcrc padicuhrity. which consciousncss is scr upon rcducing to nolhingness (PS:135 ) In its.ttempts to purify itseli the Unh.ppy ( onscrousness tumson its own body as a source of wenkness and stiritual corruprion. arnandrng in the say ofils allempls to rise above ils mere individualiryibLrr thc morc il lries to olercome its physicrll nrlurc. lhc morc thc bodybecomcs an obsessivc focus of dtlcntiorl

Consciousness rs aware ol irsell-as thi.\ udtul irttii.luul n thtnnimnl functions. Ihcsc drc no lonse. pcrfomcd nrrurdlly rndwithoul cmbarassment, !s mattc.s triiinS in thenrselles whichc.nnot possess any impoltan.e or essenlial signilicance tbrSprrilr instead. since jl rs rn them thal lhe enemy releals ilsellrn his chlracterislic shrpe. thry are tulher thc objccl of seriouscndcrvour. rnd bcconre prcciscly m{ttcrs (Jf lhc ulmosl inrprhncc. Ih is cncnr l . hosc\cr , rcn.$s hinrsclr in his deie. t . and

ir l i r rn! ns r l rcntroi on hrr ' . l l r l io l r l iceingi l \ r l l r ronr h, . rcr l l \ rc,nr, s l i ) r . \ ! r co l rct wi th hrnr. !ndl i ) r erer \ee\ r r \e l l rs dcl l lc{ l i rnd. srrcc r t the same trmc thrsobtcct o l i rs c l i i )ns. Inslcrd ol bcrng \nncthinS csscnr ia l . is oflhc nr.{n.sl .hNtuLlcr. Insl.lrl ol bcrng r unilcnal. is lhe meresr

l ) rn i .uh' . s. hxtc hcrc i ' r l ) t ' p$sd' l l i ly coni ined lo i ls o$isell and rt\ oNn l)eu) rcr('ns. u pcrsonrlity brooding olcr irsclf.a\ $relchcd rs rl rs nnPolcrishcd.

(PS: 1:15 6)

94

T']E DIALECT C OF THE SUSIECT

In going funher in this attempt at.educinS its paflicularity 'ionolhrnSness'. the Unhappy consciousness now Sives up all freedomofaction as well as all earthly goods, and puts them in the huds ofa'n€diator or ninister [pnesr]', to decid€ for n how it should acl:

This mediator. havinS a direcl .elationship with thc unchange-ablc aeing. ministers by giving advice or what is risht. Theaction. sincc it follows rlpon the decision of someone else.ceases. as regards the doing or lhe nrl/i,ra ol il. to be ilsown. Bul there is slill leti to lhe unessenlial consciousnesslhe 06r&/n?aspecl. viz. the lruitofits labour, and its enjoymenl.These. therefore. rl rcjects as well, and Jnsl as il .cnounces ilsri1/, so it rcnounccs thc u.hluln:, il rcceivcd in work |ndcnjoymcnt . . . Through lhesc momenls of sunender. Iirsl of itsdght 1o dccide for itsell: lhen ol-ils propeny and enloymenl, andiinall) lhroLrgh the posilive nromenl ol pracrising whal il doesnol undersland. it truly rnd complclely dcprives ilsclfoflhc consciousness of inner and outcr f.ccdom. oflhc aciurlily in whichconscidrsncss crisls rr ih.//: Il hls lhe ced!inly ol hrving trulydivested i tscl l o l i rs / . and ofhavi g lumed r l \ i inDedir te sel l - 'conseiousncss inlo ! Thing. ink, an ,il,{ /i,. c\rslcnce.

|6 7)

l leScl srys lh l t hcrc thc LJnhlppy (onseur\rcss eomcs ro lccl , r hasochielcd genurne \ell-rcnuncinlidl. in t' tlrv rh $r\ not posrbl.lhr(Jugh prayer and worl llo{rv.r. illhough thc Indrvrdurl c.n lNkcr stcp hwads unr!crs. l i l t hr" f r r l ing hrrnscl l undcr lhc sway ol lhcpr icst . lh is is nrcrc ly r r r t rdrn. loss ol scl l , dnd $ docs not rc l l lys iSnNl th. synthcsis ol uni \crs. l rnd Indi ! idu!1. as lhe l . t lcr rs secn i rsncgrtcd by thc fonncr: - Ihc $mcnder ol i ts o\n s i l l . r " I tdf f r ( l . /drwi l l , is nor l I lkcn by i ( lo he i r pr inciplc lhe posi l rve aspecr ol un'versalwi l l . s imi lar ly. i t \ g i ! rng up ol possessions and enloy'n.nt h ls onlylhc \ l r r r negatrve nreaning (PS: I l lJ) .

Al ihis pornt. Hcgel m.kes a ltunsilion lo lhc nc\l pln of thePr.roft,r,l)&r. to Rer$n . whcrc the nood suddenly ehanges. lrom

lkNmy rc l iSiosi ly lo. ! l ional is l ic opt inr ism. f legcl makes this l ransi 'tii,n vcry quickly, in one prragruph. and il rs hard l. see how it isnl('lnl () sorL (hc mighr undersrirnd the lranslrion lhis way: once rl

I'TI i E DIALECTIC OF IHE SUSIE{I

has adopted lhe pncst as a mediator, conscjousness can now at leasrconce've ofthe possibility ofblessedness. and lhus can come to thinkthal at least |ll prtn.?le its actions might bc recognizcd as thoserequll9rd aodrrlailed by Codi ir thcrefore no longer s.es ntc|+-ns

'nheren y oul of{o$h wilhthe rational order lhd sovems ihc wi,ild.

€ven though il still sees such reconcitjatjon a!.a r"/ond'(pS: lj8).somelhinS it is bcsl to treat I)s a .hope'. But once it takes a furtherslep. and grves up thinking of this reconcitjalion as out of reach. therat'onalisric sell-conlidcnce we tcn behind us with rhe Stoics canrctu . but lhis rime in a ncw and more.adicl}t fo.m. in which sel._conscrousness ns !n individu!l .ecognizcs itselfin rhc world oiobjects,and so no longcr sets itself outside the rarional ordcr qua unjvc.sal:'In this molemenl il has also bccome awarc of its rrilr wilh thisLnr\er\ . r l rPs: Lrar. l r i , rhr \ r (n($ed rarronrtr \m rhJr , ; rm. lh(rup(of the nexl chapter.

96

Chapter 4

The dialect icof Reason

lPhenomenology,C. (AA.) Reason)

f,ationaligm and idealism

Wilh lhc movc from UDhappy ( onsciou{ness k,Rcason. the /r.rork,ro1,r&r rccaptures the spirit or'opl imrsm characler in ic of . ! l iondl ism.ncss once agajn comes lo look rt rhc $orld rs r thc.whcrc n can be al honre : No{ thr t \e l l -eorserousrcssir Rcr$n. i ls hr lheno ncul t i !e rehl i ( l ( ) o lhcnrcsslums round nr lo a posr l i !c rc lNrrn ' (PSr l l t ) ) l ters, ihokls that thc wor ld is rr lk)nxl . rDr l ! , no$ sers ou,,ol i t r r . / / r f lh is r , lhenrcss l \ l l . rs \c hr!c sccn.whrlc f {egel h r \e l l srs u rr t ronr| ls l In th is scnsc. hc$is r l i ' conccn!r( l r l 'x l suel , r r r r .nr lLsnr shNld I rk. i ls

t rop.r ibnn: olherursc, he bclr . tcd. n eould crsr lybcconrc dinortcd. ln rhls s..tron- we rherelbrc findl l tgcl rnalysinS lhc shonconr ings ol r l i t ierent k in. js orf t r ronal ism. x l lo l -whrch l rm our k) hc iDrdequ.rc andonc-srded. as an unresolved ren\ior bctwccn th. carcgor ics ol indi , , ldual i ty . r r ( l unr\chr l i lv remains.

t{cgel opens the chirpler $1rh r discussion oi,/.d/arr. which collapscs thc distltrctid betwecn thc

IO IA LE CTIC Of REA'ON

subject and the world, and so takes thoughls and things to coincide

Up lill now [self-consciousness] has been concemed only wirhits independence and frccdom. concemed to save and maintainilself fo. ilselfar the exfEnse of the r!r/4 or of irs owD actu-alily. both ofwhich appeared ro il as rhe n€gative of its essence.Bul as Reason. lssured of itsell it is at peace with rhcm, andcan endure rhcm; for it is cenain that it is itself reality. in thalevcrylhing actual is nonc other than itselfi its thi.king is fsclfdi.cctly acruality, and lhus ih relarronship ro lhe lafter is that ofidcrlism . . Illl discovcrs the world as tr new rcal {orld, whichrn rts pcrmrnence holds an inlcrest tbr it which p.cviously la)only in ils tr{nsiencyi ibr the .Td/r'r.? ofthe sorld becomcs forsell-consciousncss ih one /ru/l rnd,r/.a?r.!r it is ccnlin olcxpcriencinB only ilsclt therein.

{PS: l19 40)

I lcgcl is c lear ly sympalhct ic to the $a) in *hich th is ideat ism cnabtcsconsciousncss ro escapr thc urgc lbr the rransccndcnr, and the nced ro'negale the worldr 'Apprehending itseltin ihls wny. ir is as ifthe worldhad lbr it only now come rnlo beingi previously ir did not underslandthc worldi ir desircd it and worked on il. withdrew from ir inro itsettand abolished rl as rn cxistcnce on its own account. and its own seliqur consc'ousness bolh as consciousness otrla\ consct)usness ol ils nolhingness (PS: l-19 .10). Idealism thcrcfo.crcprcscnls x k ind ol . rd!ancc: ur i t . $c hr!c our rat ion! l is l ic l l i rhrcst( t re(1. lhrr Ihc suhiccr $i l l i ind rhc wor ld !eecs! ,D,e () rcau. Inso r i r rs rr r \ ( rcr tcd bl rh. nrbtcel . ! ) r t is ecf l r jn ol c\pcr icfc ing

r\ l lh is l !nnr. h,)$c\ . r . l l .g( l c\prcs th. $Mknr\ \cs ol r tut io,t r r l \ ! r lhr l 1r Ies rh, \ l i , rnr . $ hd. his r . r r r r rks inrp] i . r t ly rc l ! r lo Kdnt.| , rhtc r t r ( l s .hcl l rng lh\ l i r \ t .ntrcr{n rep{ts thc obiectron mrdcl ' | l r r r \ r sehcl InS in rh. l te l icc: nxm.ly. rhr t lhr i rdcr l is t ic ratronat ismdocs rdr d,rr, lbr its poitn or nucnrpr rr) txkc on boa.d other ponrlsol ! r r$. hur i ,nplv ( loSnxtreir l ly rsser ls lhr t IReasonl is d l l re. | l iy '( l )s: l l l l l lceruse schcl l inr laclcd l lcscl s phr losophieal mcrhod.$hcrcb) olhcr srlrdpoirts !rc gonc throLrgh ftsr. [r]he conscnnrsncss

il

98

THE DIALECIIC OF REA9ON

which is this truth has rhis path behind it and has ibrgotten il. and€omes on the scene tnu e./i4tely as Reasont in other words, this Rcasonwhich comes immedialely on the sc€ne appcaro only

^s the cerroinr!

of that truih .. . Thc idealism thal does not demonstrale lhat path bulltrrls of with this assertion is therefore, too, a pure rrrcrtz whichdocs nol comprehend its own seli nor can it make ilself comprehen-jb le lo olhers (PSi l4 l ) .

A second cnlicis is morc technical. and is dirccrcd prinarilyri Kant. althouSh il cxtends ro lrichtc too. This corcerDs Klnr's nrera,physical deduction in the ( itiquc ol Purc Rcason.||here Kanr deriveshis rable ofcategories liorn a lable of logical Judgements. Like Fichrernd Schelling. llegel argues here lhlt this p.occdure is tho.oughlyunsntisfactory, an oulrage on Scicncc {PS: 142). bcclusc il docs notnally dcmonstrate thc neccssity of the categories as suchi but. heclaims. lhe atlempt by l_ichle lo derive them liom lhe absolule ego'is no more satislactory or enlighlenrng.

Thr third criticism I{egel makes is perhrps lhc mosl imponnnt.rnd also finds rn ccho in the Prcircc, wh!.c hc chinrcd lhrl cvcrything tums on 8rasping the Truc. not only as 51,/,Jrn r, bur cqually .sS&n/(./ Thus, as we saw. whlle Hegel endorses idc.'linn In v,r.scnse. u is also cnrcial firr hlm lo cnsLrre thar thrs unitl docs nol rgrinf ! l l bnck in lo incn sinrpl ic i ty. rnd docs nol dct ie l retur l i ly i tsc l f i r rnon .c lual mdnncf ( l 'S: l0) . l lcgcl .h ims hcr. lhr l lhc Krnl i .n idcr liss hav. ! io l r ted th is constrr inr . * i rh rh. r t$ l t rh. l thL cmpt incss ol 'thc subjecl rcquire\ rhen' Io rc i r lu lLree Irnl 'cr l iod ol ne8.r l ion. inihc l i l rm ol Fichlc s la{ / , )" ( c\ tcnt l inr te lus )or Krnt s unknos-rhlc lh ing in- i lsel f . $ lhr l thcrr r r l i (Dr l i rn ends ut bcrns conrpR)mrscd hr- rn undcr ly ing s.et l i . i {n

I(i'nrcrousnc$ l lirn {lcelafutor rs only lhis abnrnct cDrptr_

thfusc lhrr c!cryrhi ' rg is / r \ rsr . |1tr thc ccn{ i r ly of bcing . l lrcalily is rt lirst lorlll lhc ptrrc calegory This R.x\or s'hi.hlirsl recognjTes nselr'1tr rhc objecl tjnds expressio. 1n the empty

calism r!hrch graspi Rc{s,n only as il ,irsl comes on lhe scene:rnd fdncics lhnl by to in l inS out the pure minc ofconscious-ncss in al l bcing, lnd d.c ld.nr8 dl l th ings lo bc sensat ions orrdcas. il has demonslr.tcd thal nrure ol consciousness to b.

TFIE DIALECTIC OF R'A'ON

complcte reality. lr is bound. rherelbre. to be ar lhe same rimcabsolute empiricism. for in ordcr to givc ri ing ro the empr\'mrne . r.e.lo ger hold ofl'JFerer.. with altns devctoped formulations. its Reason requires cxrnneous imputs€. in which firsr isro bc found rhe,rrrdt i4 ofs€nsarions and ideas . . . Thc pur.Reason ofrhrs idealism. in order ro rcach rhis.orher. which,s(xvzridl to il. and rhus is rhe jr-tr"r. bul which ir docs nor hat.wilhin rt. as thercfore thrown back by irs own setf on lo thrrknowinf \rbich is ,l,r a knowing of $har js truci in this way, irlondcmns ilscllol rts own knowledgc and !otition ro being arLrntruc kind ol knowing. and cannol gcl rway trum .meaning.

and lrcrceivins . which lbr ir halc no trulh. tr is jnvotved in !drrlct contradiclioni it assens csscnce to bc a dultiry ofopposcdl.rckirs. thc unn| ol uppetu"./r,,,, and cqurlty a frr,gl whcthcrthc lhins is called,in cxrraneous imptusc. or I' empiricat orscnsuous cnlrty, or the Thrng-in-irsct[ n stil rcm.rins in pnn-crplc lhe srmc. r.c. exrmneous lo thnt unrry.

(pS: t,[4 5l

Though cxtrcmclr- comprcssed, this rhnd crn;cisrn of Krnt andhrs succcssors ,s highly signilicmr lir thc tighr it shcds on how Heg.t$rnlcd his own idcllisric rarionatism lo bt undcrsrood. Ahhough hcdoc\ not usc lhrs rcrminology hcr.. clscwherc hc drsringuishes his ownrdcxlistn lionr rhlr ol K.rnr by ca ins rhc lbnrr.r,nbsotLrtc ideatisn.! rd rhc lat lcr 'subiccl ive idc. l ism (EL \ , {52. p. ?t) . nd i r is c leartysubl .er i !c idc! l ism rhl t he rs cr i r ie iz i r rE at lh is I )o inr in lhcI'h.tunntnt'ltrg\ As tlegel sees it. KU in(l hrs$hrcerr \ rn runr b.c.u\c rhcy th, t r t lhr t rcut ! rs jntc rs ib l . ro.'!r\(!trr\trc\\ orl|n {' lar rs x lu\ r li)m irl]po\ld rpon it h\ rhcnnndi r r r tu srnr. f imc. lh inSs in rhcDrsLl \ . \ . shi .h do nor h. \e rhali)nn Inrpo\(d upon lhenr. stand outsidc thc !rusp ot our rnre ccls.NoN. ll.gLl xee.tls rhrr realtv musr h,r!( r ecdrin l-onn in ordcr tob. ,ritcll'trhlc r,, consciousncss; but he drni.r rh!r il is rrrt)r.r/ by thesublccr ,, rcnhty.:rg!!tU inslead Uut il is utercnl in rcality irs€l: sothot rhis fonD mcdiates belween thc $bjcct on rhc one hand anrt theworlr for rhc othcr. As l legel putsr ; lm a. , r4r , )n th! phihtuphro/ r , r r l ,4. I lhoushr l conrainr iconci t rurn,n in rrs purcsr essenrr . r r ry.

TIIE DIALECTIC

Lcluse ii approaches the extemal [world] in lhe exp€cbtion thai this

rill.mMy the same re.son as th. subjecl do€s (PW:208/PH:439).

h Hcgel.lhereforc. ide,alisrn proper is the docrrine (Mt the world har

I ntional slructure that is accessible to thought and so can b€ 'broughl

5 conlciousns': thal is. consciousncss can make ilself r,ff€ ofthis

ltion.l srnrcture as it exists in thc *orld. Bul HeSel reJcls any

ldcrlism that treals such ral iodal structur€s as mind-dep€ndent or mind-

hnpos€d. ln this r€spect. Hesel (like Plalr) snd Aristorlc) \ras a realisl:

But aficr all. objectivily of thoughl. in Kani s sensc, is aga'nio a cert|in exrent subjcctive. Thoughts. according to Kanl,ahhough universal and nece$ary cateSories, dre dnh' dtlr

thoughls separdled by an impassablc Sulffrorn the thing. as il

cxists apart ftom our knowlcdSc. llul lhc lrue objecdvny ofrhintinS means lhat thc thou8hls. far from being mercly ours.must bc at rhe same trmc thc rcll esscncc ofthrnSs. and ofwhat'e\'er is .rn object to us.

(LL: l { lz . PP 67 8)

Thus. in cnllins himselfan i.lcrlhr. llcscl inlcndcd to sisnal his allc-giancc kr a ccnain conccplull rculism. ralllcr lhrn l() nny Kanlirn

doclrinc rcgrrd'n8 the dcpend€nce ofthc trorld on a conslruclive mind:

on thir vie$. human conscr(Jusncss rcfl('els {nd malcs known lhc

fundlmcnr.l conccptual order irhercnl in thi gs rs thc\ .rc rn thcm-

scllcs. rulher thrn thrngs rs lhcy rrc consliluled by us. As thrs

discussion in thc Pr.,,,k,r,/,{r showt. llcgcl hcld rhrr shile subiec'tilc idcrlisnr nrry apperr to hc rr oprr)n liJr thc Blionrlist because

'n$nrc scnsc r l breaks dosn lhe hrnr!r hcl*ccn mrnd.nd $or ld, in f ic t

th is opl ion rs unnrblc- !s rr hrc l t \ rhs hrr icr dosn rmmedotcly_.*rrhour n(,pcr rcspr.l li)r thc nrnd'rndcPcrdc'rcc ol realrtv. so thxt

*-cpr(.l problcms re-cmerlr llcgcl\ rrgurncnl r thnl $hilc Knnllan

idc,rhin mny lrent rhe ph.nomenxl $orld ir\ eonsritut.d by thc nnnd

an.l hcncc xs lino$.blc. rr rr tilrccd to po\rt r nrind-indep.trdcnrnoumcnrl rcll,ry b.).ond il. k) trr idc lhc nrind {ith som. conrenr litr

i rs consrnut ing acr iv i ty; bul th ls rcr l i ly is lhcn dccmcd unkno$.ble.N il lics ,r^rili,thc wodd as lhc suhjcct dclcrmincs it: This idcdlisnl

is invol!cd ur rhis conlradiclir)n bccrusc it asserls the nh!!tu||1 Notit,l

of Rcai)n 1(] b. lhe Truei .otrscqucnlly. rqlily dircctly comcs lo bc

100 101

IHE O IA LE CTIC OT REA5ON

for it a realiry lhar is just as much trdl rhat of Reason. u.h'te Rcasorrs at lhc same trme supposcd to be atl reatity. Tbis Reason rcrnains rrestless searchrng rnd in irs very searching declarcs lhai the sanst.!ct 'on ofr ; { r ,a rs a sheer rmpossibi l i ty . (pS: t45).

Now, in claiming thal .[r]h;s ideaUsm rhercfore becomes rhcsamc kind of sell-contrudictory ambiguity as Scepricjsm, (pS: l.+,1).Hegcl has been accused of misrepresenling Kanr,s posirion. and olmrsundeBtanding the way in which Kanl wished ro dislinguisllbetwcen drings as lhc! appcrr to us ind .rhings as they lre in themscl les. Fo. example, i t is r rgucd thrr l teget mist .kenty th inks rhl lKinr is conrmi led lo x two wortds.aceount ot t t r is d ist incl ion. rat l . rrhan r sexkcr 'two aspect account. when ir is claimcd that lhc lallcrd{)es not compromise a redlin ! iew ofthe $ortd, or trexr il as sonlcho$'second rate. I t .cmains an open qucsl ion. however. how l .ar Kant.sposrrron can hc reconsrruclcd iD lhis wry. and nrdeed whcther su.hrcconslrucl idr is sul6cienl lo csc.pe I lcScl .s l -und.menrat misgiv ings.( for re lerences ind l i rnher drscussion, scc Srem t999: 255 9.)

Observing Reason

lrrustratcd by the scll,rmposcd Iimirrtions ot idealsrrc r.rionatisn.consciousncss no!\ tnkes up ! r|ther diffcrenr ralion!tislic srdnce. oncthxt cmerged hinorically !s prn ol the scienltic rcvotutron in pon-Rcnaissance and posr-Rcfonnat()n Luropc. tn adopting this pcmpec-r ive. conscrousncss nolv sccs rhe nalurat $ortd rs rcccssible to rr l ionalInqurry usrng obsenal ton Nnd expcn,nenlx l merhods. so thrr cor_

comc rc lcct .t homc in lhc wortd lhrourh rhe{ ' . .cs: l i ' l pu^ui l ofs. idr t i t ic knowtcdg!. h} qhich rhc bchr! iour otndi \ r l l | i l \ rs {rh! !ncd undcr c{rcgor ies or ! t r i ! r rs. t t r$\ . I l .get cal ts

r l ' r \ l , r I ' " l ! ' rF.r , \ r .n( \ \ . r 'h.(nrnt k( , . " , I

l ) re! t r rs l r" . i rs pcr.epl ion Nnd,a/rr-n2, i ot \Nr i ( rs rspects ol .l . l1,r , , { .1 ' y,rr1h'nr rh. , r . r , l i / . r / , r , . / / . . . , rFir , ,J.n(. . .

hrr hcre. e(Nciorsress , rd*.r ,J rr l obsenr l ios lnd cxFr i -nrcnls NlertrrnS rnd pcrcciv jng, \h ich prcviousty were! I \ r ' r ' , . lL, l / . , r \ . . J r r ,$ ! r [ ,uhfd(J h) rr . t t i r ( ! ,n\ . ror \nf \ ,ilsclll Rrnlnr \crs tu work to tno! the lrurh. m Und in the fo.nr

01 a Notion that which. tbr 'meaning and pcrceiving', is .Thingi i.e. it seeks to possess in ihinghood lhe consciousnessonly of ilsell Rcason now has. therefore, a unrversal rrrer.at inthe tlorld. bccruse il is cenain of ils presence in the world. orrhal the *odd prcscnl to il is rational. ll sccks its 'olhea.knowrng lhar tberein x possesses norhing bul itself: it sccks onlyits ow. inlinrtude.

(PS: 145 6)

As wi lh the previous discussion oi rdeal is l ic r . ionr l ism. I legcl sltlitude ro scienliUc rationalism is ambivalenl: on the onc hrnd. hc issympathetic lo the mtionalislic spirit rhar drjves il. bul on lhe olherh.nd hc lhinks thar tfiis spirit here atpeam iD a disrorted lbm. as allthc univcrsalcatcgories and ld*s thrt il constructs d.c too.bstract andarbilrary. lle lherefttre wrms thll r ccndin lick of dclclopmcnl inconsciousness !,/ conceplion rl lhis stagc leads it lo misun.lcrstrndwhar it nrerns ro see irseli in the $orld: But even rl-Reason digs inrothe lery cnlrui ls of lh inSs and opcrs e\ery le in in then so thal i t maygush fonh to mccl i tsc l l i l u i l l nol !n. in rhis ioy Lof l inding i tsel lpresent in thingsl: il musl luvc comtlllcd ilsclf inwtrdlt b.lbrc il canexpenence lhe eonsummal ion ol i tsc l f (PS: 1.16). t lcscl nr !kcs c lcNrlhal one imponrnt rcspccl rn which screnlilic tutron!lsnr gocs Nst.!y.is rhar in rryrng lo olercone lle \ubjcct-ccntcd ourl(r,l ol idQIsni(which rcdu..d the n. lcr i r l wor ld kJ th. sr l l ) . i t goc\ t i )o r i r rn throliposilc dir.clion (rnd so rltcnrtts l() rcdu.. lh. {'lf r,) lhe materialwor ld) , $ thr l \e f i rvc hcrc .n cqur l l ) onc s iL lcd fosi lnD. t lcg. lthereioc considcrs ho\ ()b\cr \ in8 RcrRnr \ ic \ rs Ihc nl lurr l sor ld ( inthe $hsect ion Obsc^nl ln, , ,1 \ r lurc ) . how r l ! ie$s i ls . l f !sconscidLrM.ss( in lhe n,bscet, ,nr ' ( )b:cNrrro ol Sel l - ( inrscusne\s ) .r rd ho$ i l r i t$s thc rc lxrnn brt$ccn rhc lwo in the c.nr i .ctron ol '

'n ind rnLI body {ur lhc subsc. l ior 'Obs.r ! ! l idr of l l rc Rclar ion. l Sel l '

(onsci(Nsncss k) i rs Imnrcdi . rc Acrur l i ry ) . lhR)ughoul r f i is d iscussion. l lcgcl s r iDr is t ( ) shos thr l whi lc $. !nusl rcspc. l lh. lchicv.mcnls ol lhc nrturil sci(nces. t!c should nol crlggcrrtc thcm. for thcscient i f ic our look st i l l lealcs lhe (c \ ion belscen unrvrrs l l i ry rnd indi-!iduality uffesdvedi we therctirre should nol lreal scienrilic models.nd exphnat ions .s i f rhey 0lone cxn provide us $nlr . r proper wa) ol

t!F

102 101

THE DlA !E CTIC Of REASON

understanding ou.selvcs and the natu.al world. as this unresolledlcnsion mcans thll iD fnct reason musl .cmlin unsatisfed by this wrfof viet|ins $inss.

Obseryation of Naturc

Hegel begins his anllysis of how scientific rationalism regards rhcnatural wo.ld by $rgSeslinS thnt whilc thc official !llegiance oJObscrvins Red$n is to rhe primacy ol experience and hencc 1o cmpiricism, 11 ls dclually connderabl] more sophisticated in ils ourlook lhdnthe sondpojnts that $ere considered earlier in the Consciousness'chapler. both ir the cpislemoloSical level (in allowiDg lhat there is norconccplull givcn ) and !1 thc onlological le\cl (in allowing thal whalis obscrvcd is nor ! brre plnicuhr): [ObscNins Rcdsonl will .rexdily ldmit thrt ils concem is nol sholly !nd solcly *ith p..ccption.and wrl l nol le l . e.g. . lhe percept ion thal th is pcnkni fc l ics r longsidcth;s snull-box. pass for !n obsenalion. Whal rs pcrcei!ed should atl . . l { hJ\ c rhc isnr l i . Jnf( . ' l . , / r , , , r w// . 1nr o ' r \ , , t ,4^ prt t t , h! . r :(PS: 147). tscc.usc it rccognizcs thNt tiings sharc uni!crsal propenie\.Obser!ing Reason bcgins by rtl.nipling to describc thc world in !smuch detai l rs i t can. and to c l . rssi l i th inss into k inds. by disr inguishing bcrween essenr ia l and inessentral propcnics. ln doing so, i thopes to l ind ! indicNt idr for i ts r r lbnai ist ic pic lurc. bJ shosirg th! lwhrl is sllient lo us is dlso sNli.nt lbf nrture itselll rf, ! sdy thalsuggcsls lhNl our cl.ssillcdlidrs rcllccl slructurcs irhererr ir lhlng\:'/)i//.r1r,/nk,!rc $rpposcd. not mcrcly to ha\c rn cssrnti.l coDncctdi*rrh cognrr ion. hul r l { , lo ieeo wi lh lhe css.nt id l chNfuctcr ist ics orrh, , r rs. xr id oL,r r , l i r i r l \ .y \ rcrr i \ \uppo\ed r() record wi th Nrturc \t iNn sr( . f r r r ( l lo c\ f r .$ (rr l \ Ih is (PS l .1r) . ( )bsening RcNsnrl i rds nrt t ( lor rhrs ohrc.r \ Lrv rr r rs rL\s i l i .x l iors ,n sonle i rcrs.. r \ $hcn n / ( ! ,1, ' ! ) $( l in( l rhrr th. e l . \s rn( l r . . rh *xh shich ccni ,rnrnr iL l \ \ ( l lh(r \ .1\c\ r | : I l r iorn or. rntnhcr . r . . lso th. fc. l lures $cu\c ro r , l , ) l l lh( \e i , , r , r l \ rnr , ' l rn( l \ . l lo\e\cr . lh is Nrgunrcnt lnrlhr fu l ioni , l l r \ t r rerc\ (n t r r r rL.c doc\ |or l lke ()bscr! ing RcNnr\cr) l , , r . .s r l (nIcr l f \ f l \ ( f rnr(olx ' l r - , f botrny and thc inorg!nie\.i.n.es) ir linds ir hrkl n) xdo|r rnl *{r ol \rrblc and non-tirbilra^chssr l i . rnn sLh.nrc

IHE DIALEClIC OT REA5O

Observation. which kepl them [i.e. its biological crtesoncs]properly apart and belielcd lh.! rn lhem il had something tim

abd settled. sees principles ovcrlapping one anolher. transitions

and confusions developingi whal il al lirst t(Fk to be absolulely

separate, it sees combined with somcthing else. and what n reck-

oned to be in combirulion, it sees apan and sepamte. So it rs

that observation which cUngs to passive. trnbroken seltaamencss

ofbeing. inelitably sees itself lormenled just in ils most gencnl

delerminalions e.g. of whal arc lhe .r'lktlrr?c of !n rnimal

or a plant by instances which .ob il ofevery detcmrndlron,

invlUdare lhe univcrsrlily lo $hich it hrs risen, and reducc 'l

to

!n obscnrtion and descriplion lvhich is dcvoid ol thought.(PS: 150)

Hegcl suggcsrs thal though lhe scientist wishcs to !indicale. rdl'o-

nalisric oullook. hc cannot do so, becaute hc is lom tutween on lhc

one hand adotling an empi.ical lpproach. which allempls to group

crerlurcs logether using therr mercly obser!ed simih.ilics (claws.

reclh. crc.). and on thc other hand trying lo bise a systcm ol nrtural

kinds on lhesc sirrilNriticsi the scienhsr trics lo treal rhesc chd.ictcF

isrics as fixed and cssenlial, whcn lhe chaDgc.bilily rnd hetcrcgcnc'ly

ol-crearures. t th is lc le l makes this impossiblc This scicnl i l ic oul look

thcrefore lhces a i-undrmcntal lersion bet\et rhc unilcrsrlly ol its

c lassi f icrrory schenrc and lhc pur l iculr t i t r " o l lhc indlv idur ls i l l r ies

bul ihils to subsunle under lhc schcnicFlndinS ilsell liu\lr.t.d b) thc rpprr.trr \lgucness trnd arb'tntr-

ness ol i ls u l tcnpls lo cr l . nr lur . ! l lhe. i {J ints usins x conceptton

of nxtLml krrds, Obs.ning I{er*t r no$ r l lenrprs to nsc rbo\c nrcre

obscnrr ior xnd des.r i f l i lnr a ( l l { , sr t 's1! lhought b} Nt lcnrplrng r ' )

unco\cr lhc hws Lhar go!.m fhenonrcnr Thc di f l ieul ly ibr()b\c^rn8

Rc vrn. howe\cr. is b kno\ ho$ k, r .conci lc a coDccp(ron oi ldws

is uni lers l rnd ncccssrr ! $ i lh i ls residual cmPir ic i5m Hcgcl

sFxkshrreol rn insl inel o l Rer\D. by $hich h. m'rn\ rhrr shi l .

such cmpi.icisnr slnrlLl lcrd il tu lccl N llLnncan sccptrcrsnr rboLrl

such uni ! .ar l i ly i lnd nc.cssi l ) . norrc lhcicss conseiousncss f inds i l

hard ro doubr rhNr laws rcnr.s.nl ho\ it is lhal things nrusr be, gilcn

lhcir unde, l r - rn i r n. lurcs Thr l r s l (nrc l i l ls . rs lnk ' lar con'c iousncss

104 105

l '

I TH€ OIALECIIC OF RTA'ON

bccaure in its healincss tbe srone has in and fo. itsetfrhal essenriNlrelation 1() the earrh whjch is expressed jn thllins, {pS: 152).

()bserving Rcason lhus tinds itselt-constnrctjng la$s lhat arcIn'jreasjnSly gencrrl .nd rcmoled frcm ihe conffelcncss ol-rhe cxper-rmental sirualron. *hile irs conception of ! prope.ty becomcs morclbslracl. culmrnaljng in the norjon of matlers.,l,such ns positjve dndncsative elcctricil), or hcar). wtich;;-nar obscNable plrticutars burare tieorelical enriries whi"lirri"" i .rai", .,,rrr- r. unir/ffit. T.kisallo*s ()bserMng Reason ro fnnr. laws rn r ()re lno mo.c lr,srracrand turc say Wc l ind. !s thc rrurh ofrhis cxpenment ing consciou$ncss. t)r/1. L/n.. \hrch i\ ticcd ii1'nr sensuous being; we sce il rs INor,, which. whiLe pr.senr in sens({rs heir8. opeturcs there inde_tcnd.rrl)' xnd trnrcilturncrt. .rnd. whrtc inrnrcrsed iD ir. rs lic. ol-il. rndI

'nr l ) / , .Nol i ( in (PS t51) In t inding i lsct fdrr{n Nway l ionr ernt i r i

osm rn( l no'nrnr l i !n. Obw!inS Rean)n gxins an inrportrnt jnsighlrr(' ho* thr world ir.orporrtes slructurc\ rh.t can orrty he unco\.rcdhy thought (cr : LL \2t2. pp. l t . t ) .

tk,wcver. r t thorSh this is an inrpof l rnr tcsson lb. ObseNingRc{son lo lcrn. r id onc $hich. oqs i t to l i r i turgunic naturc jntoxn incrcasingly conrpter Nnd jlrisiying lhcorericrt tirDrework. ir lindsllsclf liustrulcd .s ir a(enrpts t(, lrcat ,nolhcr pan ol the nrrural $orldIn lawl ike tenns: nrnrely. l i ! ing organisms. I {er . . Ohscr! ing R.an,n{t lcr lprs lo l ind lx$s rh sr t l cxpt rn thc t l . l rurc ol-orgxnisns in tcnn\ol thcrr en\ innrnlcnl . whrch i t hope\ s i crrbl . i t k , ctrssr,y orgrn_r\nrs In eeol() t l rcJt l rmrs (cg t rkc l rc hsh hecNusc lhc]- t ive hcst i r$r l . f ) l lo$cv$. Obseni fg l . (cNson l inds rhrt rhcsc t r \s rrc nrcrcr, r .htrons. $ hich rpf 'e.r t (J hrtc no undcr rg nc.L,ss,ry or r l l l ronNlr ' rec. htr . \ : , r r t l . in rhr \ ( )n or ' !cncrr t rheoN ol enr i rnnrenrr t InUuener f rot ,oscd b\ rh. b i ) tosisr ( i t , t ic ! r r rnrr . rc(oktrrg lo $h,ch'rnrr jx s h. l , ! run! ro i l t r ' l i r hrvc the nrrue ot b j , ( l \ . lhose bet(nrSingl t ) srrcr hx\c rhc nnhn or ' r ish. rnrmlts i r nonhcrn l | t i tu( lcs hr\elhr( l ' I 'n,r \ l { lh_ !n, l ! ) on l tcgcl connDrnrs:

ls lu(h h$\ rrc sc.r . r I Stdncc l ( r d,spta) r f , \cny $hich doc\n ' , r ( lo tu\rree | ( ) thc mnnifotr l l rnclv or 'o.8.njc \drure Ucsidcsth. t r . t thr t ( t r8rnir Na(urc i r l \ t iccd{n crn di \cst i rs tbnnsol rhcsc.hrturrer is l i .s . and ol |cecsjr \ , cvcrvwherc pnscnrs

105

exceptrons to such laws, or rules as wc mighl call rhem. the chiGaclerizatioh of the creatures 1o which ihey do apply is sosupericial that even the nec€ssity of the laws cannot be otherthan superficial. and amounls lo no more lh^n the Rteat inlLer.. of cnvi.onmcnlr and rhis does nor lcll us what docs andwhnl docs not slrictly belong 1() rhis influcnce. Such rehtions oforganisms 1o the elemenrs [lhey lire in] cannot thereforc in tuctbe called /rra. For, tiNily. the (drrr,rr ol such a relalion. as wes.w, does not exhausl the range of organisms concerned. andsecondly, the sides of lhc relalion lre mutually indifferent andcxpress no nccessity.

(PS: 155 )

No$. oncc Obscr!in8 Rcason rccognizcs lfirt lhcrc is no ncccss!ry rclrlion bet{ccn thc nrturc of thc orgrnisnr dnd its cnritummcnt(e.s. lhcrc rre birds $hrch crnnor Uy). il nos looks iitr a dillcrenl wryofc\plalning rhe nalure ol rhe organisnr. shlch rl now does in /.,tu,-/.)An d/ lcnns. Such explNnalions asstrnrc lhal rhe org.nisnr has apurposc, inLI .cconnt for ils varidrs pn)p.dics by showing how thcvhclp Ihc or8!nisnr 1o achielc lhr l purposc l lcgcl r rgucs, howc!cr. thxtObser!ing Rclson hrs an irl.?tl.[r/ modcl ol-lelcology. acco rng lowhich ior rn orglnism to havc !n cnd. r l nnrsl e i thcr hr le lh l l endinlenl i l ,nal ly. as a conrcioLr\ g.r l . or r r ust hr \c thr l crd be\ l ( t r lc( lon i r bv $rne e\ ternal dcsigncr *ho h. \ r (hprcd i r l { r h is or herpurposes. Thc di t l i .u l ty i \ . thr t ( )bs.^ in! Rexnrr . rnrol nr ikr . i lhcr! ic$ l l t \ i th nNrurdl orgor i ins. l i , r th.) crr \crr(c1," bc \Nid 1o h. \cchoscn their cnLls. $hi lc i l $e sa\ th i r l th() ' r rc rs thc) rrc heeruscr\( \ h, ! ( \ (L1.r l . , t r .1 l . . u, l r

' , ' ( , ( ,

' . ' l ( lL. i ! rJ . \ ! \ . ' , r ' r u.J

lh is ider r() p(Nid. u\ rL lh I i e\ f l l i r l i ,nr ( ) l rht , t rgrnrsr 's nrrr t re.Th,, \ . $ l i ' le Ohse^ i t rN R'r .s(r i re ln(^\ l fd8t : thr t lhr or8rtrrsn sh)wsirs.lf k) b. r bring thrt /)/11f/, f\ ilscll. th.t ,r,Irrr\ ml hd! ktmtu\!in lo i lsc l l ' ( l ' ]S 158). i t th i r ls lhr l thrs rr nol rc. l ly l . lcol()8i . r l b.hr!i(trtr h.c{usc rl is nol thc nrlrrlr,r ol lh. orsrnisnr k) nr trcsc^c ilscll.s) thrs obscnnrg conscrou$.s\ dde\ nol rccogDi/e in lhrs bcrnS I i .crn rhc l l tc l lhur rhc orgrnisnr rcrs ro prcser lc xscl l l lhe Nol ion ol Frd.or lhar lhe Not idn ol Fnd e\rsrs iusl hcrc and In lhe t i rnn ol r Thirg.and not c lsclh. tu ' in i rn. orh. ! inrc l l iB.n.c l t mlkcs a dinincrnD

I:

101

I I'I E

/ ,tor.\l

l,eca\ri

o,arr(r c or ^LA\.N

' lx l , iDraLEcr c oF REAToN leleol0r., ' n"" ' ]

bersc(n rhe \olon of Lnd and hernl , / r t re a ' t t r ' -presenarrnn. , ,d i , r incr ion shich r . none rps: t . | l ; / orqi . l rnrng nea.onooe,not really recogni/e rhe setr-preseruar f,rron

i,i ."dbm as d purTG(inrr in ic ro rhe rhinF rr"elr nremJl ,7; rhaj ont \ e\Dtarn, lnenaru,L o! rhe urslni \m h\app*t ' "s l ' / rcm" \ 1"" , , .

" a.r ,prc, t

ro sen( purpo"e: , ,arrrJp rr ,e l t re\re '1 t / n rhe,\ \ "hr(h rhen re.uh,in an un\at isf)rn! erplanrrorv rccouy' . ,61 , l1,nr-r , ,

^ , r , .

A, Herel pur" i r e. . (uhuc the " l l "a". , .J

n,c s nur meret)exlcmal ro nrru.e, as i t rs whcn I s, l r , l2 j ; , i \1, ,1 ' .u. *oot unty inurJ(r rh i r I m.,) ( l i rhe myscl t . sr l l . , . r ree, . ' r , t ind d,<, , f lennrd(. . , , r i r r i \ rmnl(rrrhet." 'u." t t ' r l -so. . , i | l , ,JFddn[(Jher"u.( r r r ,JU. i . (o 'k rei , ro , , '1, , , ,h ] , \ 'dn' f r \e r .of i l (

' t "1.pen. herb. rhJr $( mi l hr cure di ' /7 ." t r .^ h, . "n, t

. rnnrr , r rrhr t $c I r ts-hr mrle oxrs( ' !q. r lp r tN,r ' , , . tn. I l .hr r tor , ,hct t rLl (nf lJr oNLL\\ i . , r . r H(!r t . ! , (s, . i ; . , !1 j rde\r .s tuut ,

\ r oh\rou\. tuf ' Ion r , , r . r r .c r t hc(. ' ' . . . r r cF(t rh int ,rhJr Ob.(^rnS R(: . ,un, ,ner,r( . nnl t r , r r , r

- r l r . r r , ,ar t r ro. t r . , , rr r l ( , , loF!. n i h,hrr . r , lue\ ncr r l r r r t r l '1 ' .n r , ! , , , r , , r r . , t ty.ounr., , .Jro,1 , ' f rh. orrJnr!n. rnd fc lc{ :_ r , i . .h. . I .Lh1,t , , r ( r t e\n. , .

h{ ,nre,n. , l , ( . r . r l r | / d( . - , l . , - , , r r - r r t nr . ru( i . r . . ronr ldfh\J l I f r I - , m,r- , ' , Rr, : . , r1 i f . rT! \c, . t

,s \ . s. . fJn n ' . r r t , r t \ _, _r f r , . ,Onc1r , {1, . . ,1

, ' l . .ur . ( \ . .h,r . r ( . r1. r l , .c i r re( l $ h rhc scienr i f ic r . \otur i . ' ; l i ind. 1r{ id h! \c nrch anintcntnrrr l m,dcl or ' le lcok)gy. so th:r , l rch 1r, .1 'J je.nr jusr i t ied inr l t r ib! l i rg rhis \ i . \ \ r r rh Obsc^irrrr / ,111 i

l1!r morhcr ans*er' r1. ,1. . l rn. l l rL.r l \ . , , ' r , , \ur . r l l r ' . / r t ,L. , t r

pt . , , .1, ," . .1. . , . , r (1. . R(. ,n '_ ' , r , , . r ' \ \ , , . r , r ( t . , .1

' I r \1.r . , r1 i . , t - , r \ . r . . ,1. . r , ' , r t . IJ ' , , | ! , r , ( .L i . ( f r l . r l. ' .

' r ' i { ! ,

' r ' r

' , i t I rnh'r t : . t \ t \ ' . , . , t , , , , r r . . r r r ,ng. , ,

, . I r l , r r . , r rL, . ' r ry l r . r | , t I r t .h q,l , l , , r t r '1. ,1 ' ' , ' " t "" , . . ' * , . ' . I r ( t ( . , t . ,1, . 1

rernrs. ( )h\( ' \ , rg l ler : , ! i8,{ \ h.c[ r ] . I - ! t rsgdcmingthc.e tu l l i ro. .$c\ i f ( l ( iNe,r ,c\ of , . , I n l lcgct .s r imclhrs. ucr( i ( l f r t i r ie( l rs lhr cnprci I r r r t l ,y (nrcrnrng r t rc.r t .c i r \ .k,rrrn\ | l f , l innrrrknr l l r r r : . j ] rnrrrofrhebod],t ( ' rnolhc,) . i r r .b i l | l \ i t r rerning drc .sNnd lo sr i r ru r) .

and reproduction (mcaninS the capacity ofthe orgrnism ro Srow andreproduce rrs tissuc). Thcsc capacities w€re said to be locarcd in theneNous sysi€m, the muscular sysrcm. and the visc€ra resp€crilcly.ObseninS Reason lherefore sets aboul finding laws rhat relate thesecapac'lres lo one anothe.. and 1{) the parls ofthc body said to possessthese crpncitics. Hegel then proceeds 10 sho$'how difficrlt it is forObserving Reason to find any.eal law-like conelations in rhis arca.partly because sensibilily. initabiUly. and reproduction are interrelatrdfunctions. panly becausc it cannol mcaninStully apply quanlitalivcdcteminations in trying to relate these capacitics. and partly becausethc organism c.nnot really be di!ided into scpa.rlc anatomicalsynems: ln lhis way lhe idea ofa r& rn the cnse ofo.ganic bcinS isal logelher losf {PS: l6?). l legel therefore concludes lhat in i ls nudyol nature, Obser!ing Rcason crnnot find the tind of rational satisfac-

lHlerc observrtioD cannor do more than ro make cleler rem.rks.indicale intercsling connccrioDs. and make a tiierdly approachlo lhe Nolion. But clercr,zrruris arc not r kno|lcdgc ol neces,sity, irtLtu\tinx conrectro s go no lunhcr lhrn bcing !fintcrcn. whi lc rhe interesl is s l i l l nolhing nrm thln i m.rcsubjcclivc opinnnr .bout Reason: rnd rhc rr.a,//,k1r !virh whichthe n i ! idu{ l r l ludcs k, thc Not ion rs , r ehi l ( l l i le l i ie dlrncssshrch is ehikhsh i l i l $rnls to bc. or rs {r t toslr l k) b l ' l . l r ld In

(PS: 179 8(| )

We have therclorc sccn lhc ( lx l . . t re ol unr! . rsr l xnd indiv idualop.r . l ing al seter. l le le l \ Ihanr!h lhrs \c( t r r r . rs Ohscr ing Re.sonhNs tncd to br ing the i r ( l [ r ( lurL Lnxier sonrc In lc l l8 ib lc schcmc ofuni \crsr l ldBs. bur whe.e rhcsc ix$\ hxlc runrcd out lo bc k{r . rd hocJnd emply. to bc no nNru thrn nrcre .cgul,rrilres and conehlrons.(onscrcusncss conceplior ol lhc nrtur.l world lhus remains one rnwhich uni !ersahly and i i ! iduxl i ty nrnd oppsed as calegor ies. indso it

's stlll nnable io lind rn nrrure rbc rntional structurcs thar will

enrblc it lo fiel at home

THE D IA L ECTIC OT REASON

I

Ii

Ill

108 109

THE D A L E(TI( Of RIASON

bctween thc Noijon of tind and bcingjbr-sc tf and sctf_preservalnm. .,dislinction which is nonc (pS: 158). Because r)bservjns Reason doL,not rcally recognize the self,prcservarion oj thc organism as a purposfinlrinsic to the thing ilself (intemat teteotogy). ir onty explains lh.nature of lhe orglnisnr by appealing to how lhrr organism is adaplello sene pur?oses o!A,/. itselI(exlemat lcteotogy). which rhen resutr!in an unsarisfying exphnarory rccounl ofwhy rhe orsanism is ns n rsAs l{egel purs n else$hc.er 'Thc norjon of purposc is nol mcrct!e\ tcmNi ro nnrurc, .s i t is when I sal rhal sheen bear woot onty inorder lh. t I nray ck)the myscl i : Sr y rcmafks oI th ls k ind rre ol icnnuije. rs lar exarnplc in rhe Xcni.. t!hen rhc srsdonr ol.(nd is ldmrrcdbccause lle c.uscs cork rrccs k) grow rhat $e nrght hrvc horltesk,tpcrs. herbs ihar !e nrighr cure disordcrcd siornrchs. and cinnrbrrthrr $c mighl mrke.urscl \cs Lrp ( t_Nr I . \1.152.p |96).(rbrxhetpf i r lgefe.x l d iscussi inr o l l le i rc l s ! icws on t ! . tcotogv. sec dcvr ies l9{ I

An obvrous quesrron b r . rse i l rh is point . is r /^ cSel lh inksrhrt ( )bse6in8 Re.$n opc(rcs ont) $ i th th is i r t .Dr jonr l m)dct ol .lc lcohgv. srch rh.r l i l docs nol lh ink thnt sct f Ueln{r ion rc! l t } - counl jrs { Soal o l - rhc ortr tn i rn. rnd hcncc het ic\cs rhr l tetcotogrert . \ph-naridrs c.nnol bc intemrt (L g lhc liocrnD or purnosc of brrk on Il .ee is lo stop i l d.hydrxl inS) bur rusl bc e\ len[ t (c g. th. nurposc orbrr l on I rc.s is n, \y. c ln l iu l srops in our ho(tcs) on..nsscr euol coorse bc hinrtr icr l : thar rs. mcn! \c icnr i$ rnd trhik\ofhcr i r . ( lcr . l .d $r lh ihc scrcnr i f ic rerotut i ( , r actur | \ , d id hl !c $r.h rnrr i rcr t ron. l nr . l in relcolo! \ . ! ' th I lcg. t t roud sccnr rust i t id jnxrrnt ' !1 in! lh i \ \ ic$ $r lh t )bsening Rerson Bul rnolhcr rnsseJtr lnre\ nnrc ( l i , ( . r l \ ro nr\ ' { ) \c, ' r t t rntLJl)rc lnrrof t r t t1. t , t t tut , t t r l r/ , ( r r r f rc\ . t l j r t ( ) l r \ . r \ rn! Rtrnrn t i r l , \ | thIert ! , \ r i \ lorel i , I lr f (1. ' ( , rn( l fs. l Lr t r , \ .ArL\ , rs mr, t r r t krn(t \ . r f ( t - , ( i ( { \ n(Jr \ec l t l r r

r f i /e Lt \ r r r (1. r \ r r I n! or ' rhrr r \ f . ( (1 { t f \nc\ t98rh: 9)l , r l i ! f r r , t ) . r l \ r , ) u t r lcrnrr t l rh. i r ! .0 \nr In tctcotogrcr l

l . r , r \ .1)b\er\ Lr j ! l l ( .srnj ! i ' . \ h.L([ t ( j t ( ! r t r ! l i , t i \ \ So!cnr]ng th..cnrr l f 'o(cs\ . \ rn l f i ( r t r .s I ' l r \ i f ! xr j rnrr ls t i Icg. t . \ t jm.thc{c serc r( lc i l , l le( l l \ r t ,c . r t rUl ! Inr \ .nsibi I r r - (nrcNninS rhcertr . r l ! r r ) r r rnsl f r Intr i r f ' r r ! ! r r t rout s l rnr ! t i l r (nn onc l ] ! r l o l .1h. ho( j ) -ro.r fo lh.r) . l r r rh j l l \ tn j . rn jn! thc e. f r . l \ t t ) rcspon( l t ( ) s l inrutr) .

108

tI

THE OIALECT

and reproduclion {meaning Ihc cdpdcily ofthc orglnrsm lo grow andrcproduce ils lissue). These capacrtics scrc slid 1o bc located in thencrvous system, the muscular syslem. and the liscera respeclively.Observing Rcason theretb.e sets about linding laws thal relnte ihcsccapacities lo onc dnolhe., and to lhe parts oflhe body said to possessthese capacilies. llcgcl then procccds to show how diuicuh it is forObseBing Reason lo lind nny red lis-like corclalioDs in this area.panly bec.use sensibility. irrilabiliry. and reproduclion !.c inrerclatedfunclions. partly because il cannoi meaningfully Ilpply qu!nti1|tivcdetenninllions in trying lo relrte lhese capacilies. and panly becausethe organism cinnot rcally he divided into separale analomicalsyslems: In th is way lhc idc! ofd /df in lhe case olorgrnic being isal together losr ' (PS: 167). I leScl thereforc concludcs rh{ l in i ts studv01 natue. Obserung Reason cannol lind lhe kind of ruliondl silisfic

lHjerc obserlalion cannor (lo morc thln to nrakc clc\cr rcnu.ks,indi.rte interestin! cornectio|rs. and mrke x liiendly lpprodchlo thc Nolion. Bul .lc!er /frLr',t\ a.e nol u kno\lcdge ol ncccysrly. /rt./errj/r8 conncclrons go no tirnl'.r rhrn being ol'intcrcn. $hi lc thc intcrcst is st i l l nothirS nu. th.rn , r nrereiubiccn\c opinion rbout Rcl lnr ; !nd thc / i 'n l r l / r r i \ $ i lh whichrhc indi ! idual r l iudes lo thc Norur i r x.hrkl l ike l i icndl incss$hrch is chi ldrsh r l i t $r f l \ lo h! . or r \ l r f torc( i l ( ) hc, ! ! l id iD

(PS 170 $))

Wc hi \e lhereJirr . sc.r i thc { t rL lcr l , ( o, unr lcAr l rnd indrvidur lopcr. l rnS. l scvcr. l lc \ ' .1\ thrugh thr: \ fcr i in ' . xs ()h:e^in|r l {er(rnhrs l r icd l ( ) br ing thc indi \ idur l !nr l . r !nr i r r t l Ig ib le schcnre ol 'oni \ersr l hws. bul wherc lhcse h$s hx!c runrcd oul lo bc too ad hocand enrpt). to be no morc rhrn nrcr. rcguhrnics and corclarions.( onscroun'ess concepr i (D , ' l r l rc rrrurul sor ld rnus rcn rns onc rnwhich uni !ers. l r ry and rndir id ' r , l , ry \ r r ( l opposcd ls categor ics. rnd$ i r is st i l l un.blc to i iDd 1n nrturc r l rc ruto)al structures that wi l lenrblc i r lo l ic l i l homc.

109

f HE DIA LfCTIC OF NEASON

f he Obct''v.tlon of Salt-Cons<i.rusn.5s

Having failed to lind any satisfactory role for laws at the lcvel of inor-ganic and organic nalur€, consciousness now tums upon ilself, andmovcs from the obsenalion of datur€ ro the Observation of S€lf-Cons.iousness . in an ctfon ro find laws golFming the human nind.llcgel bcgins by discussing the anempt to trlat laws of logic as lawsof human thoughr. 8olcming the way in which we r€aen. lleSelargues thal although such laws are meanr to bc ncccsery and univenal.'the way in which lhis form or conrcnt ,rr..r.r^ itsll/ to ohsertutionqua observulion giles il lhe characlcr ofsomcrhin8 /,,/r4 someihingthal is 8n,.7, i .e. a conlenl thal merely, : r ' lPS: I8 l ) , so al l that crn bccslablishcd ir how as .j matter of facr we ./., think, not why wc n,rrrhink thal way, or why wc lr,!Lr so $int

ObscrvinS Rcason then tums liom trying kr llnd hws SovcminSthc subjccl s thoughts, lo lryrng to lind lass golcming its rclions. ands arives al obs.Naiional psychology. As bcforc. it bcSins by lryingto describc and classify p€ople into diffcren ypcs. but rt quickly lindsthal this is un$lixfying. much less interesting crcn thrn enumeratrn8the spccics ofinxeds. mosscs, etc. (PS: IE:t) ()bsc^ rng Reason lhcre-fore bcgins k' li?m( psycholoSical laws instcad: ir . . seems now roh,rvc u rational aim lDd to be engagcd in .r ncccssury ldilily (PS:183). ObservinS Rclson then looks for lints bctwccn how rbe indi-vidual bchavcs:rnd (s socral en!ironmcnt. to dctcmrinc hoB the lallerrllccts thc lbnncr. llo$e\er. the.c is rlwrys,rn clcDrcnt lhal drslortsthis clltcl. nanrcly how thc individu.l hrnNcll choo\$ k) rcspond lohrs.nlrft)nnr.nr. This liccdom possesscd b) rhc Ind'!idual mrkcs Inooscn\c ol nltcrrrptr br psvchology r() cnnb|\h h$-Lle corclationshcr$ccn thc \ r \ In $hr.h Indrt iduals bchx\c xnd thr l nf , r r l . rcum,ninccr: ll lhc Ind't'durlenher a/l^, r ticc tlnv ro rhc nrclm o, thencxlll sorld !|,,s'nB nr upon ir. or clsc brcrks rt oti lnd iruns|brms rt.Ihc r{nrll ol rhr\, I'o*c\cr. is thlt "psr"choh,grc!l ncer'\s[y hecomcs!n .D'try phfirsc. n, c rpry that rhcre exist\ rhc irhs{,lulc porsrbrlity rhalwhul rs srpposcd l() hale hs.l this influence eo!kllust !s wrll nor havehad r( ( l ,s l8. l 5) l lcScl cmphasizes lhal thrs l rccdom mcans n isnol possiblc l(i $c thc indi!idual as dclcrnlincd by rheir $cial envi-(nnrcnl . x l lhou8h he rshlppytoal lo$ thxt l i l l lhcsc c i rcumstances.

110

THE D IAL E CTIC OF R€A5OII

way of thinking. cusloms, in gcneral the stale of the world. had notbcen. lh.n of course lhe individual would not hav€ t€come what heis'(PS: 184)- The reason is lhat while thc individual may choGc loconform to lhat €nvirodmenl. hc may also choos€ to rebel aSainsr it,so while this cnvimnne will have a rolc lo play in unde6irndinShim or her, what rolc that is will ukimrtely dep€dd on lhe choiclsmad€ by th€ individual, and thes€ choices lie bcyond the kinds ofcxplanation offered by lhe s{xirl psychologist. For Hegel, lherefore.ObscBing Rcason is here oncc again opcraling with a simplistic modelofthe.clation between the individual and the universal qua habils.customs, and way of th inkinS already ro hand': 'On the onehand. Spiritr€ceives lhese modes into itself . .i ahd. on the other hand. Spiritknows itself as sportaneously aclivc in hce of the'n. and in sinSlinSout from th€m something for ils€lf. it follows its own inclinations anddesncs, making lhe object conform to r: in the lirst case it behavcsn€gativcly towards itselfas an indrvidualrty: In $€ second case. ncga-tivcly towards itslfas a universalb€in8 lPS: ll32). obs€Ning Reasondocs nor proFrly grasp this complex intcmlation.

As Obsening ReMn can find no laws 8oleming its thoughl oracrrcns /r(' r?, or its rhoughr and acrkrns rs rhcy relalr lo rhc worldoulsrdc lhc subjecl. it now looks k) lind nrme $n of corftlalionbctwcln iis thoughts or acions as mcnirl phcnomcna qrrh rhc b(xlyin which the mind bclonSs: il thcrclorc trr,vcs k) thl.r dbscrlatnn olthc rc lar ion ol sel l - -consciousncss n) i ls innDcdirrc dctu! l i rv. in rhrlhird subsccli('n on Obscrving R.xynr. In thtt suhscclion. tlc8cl luinson lhc p{.udo-scienccs ol-phyloln(nv (rhrch rr t .nrplcd lo drawconelusn)ns rboul a person \ chxriercr lr(nn xnlknrlrcrl lcalurcs) ffdphrcnoll,ly {which anenrpr.'d to (lo rlrc \n.t. u\rn8 rhe rhapr ol thcslull). $hcn h)th of th.\! it,tlr'.,rh(\ hnd lonsrdc..rble popularity nllh. l im. l lcgel *rs wr i t inS tdoc r( ' r l l $( t r lot J ( . Lar r ter and Joseph(;al l rcspccl i \e ly) . Beginnur8 $rt l t l \ io8nonry. l legcl accepts th. twc ordinanly use a person s c\frc\!(nr rs r sly of Srusing lheirlhoughis or cmorlon!. rrcrrnrg rhc lorlr|cr rs ngns of rhc lattcr: butwhcc.' physrcSnomy claims k, go hflond rhis and become a propcrscicncc. is in making /'fzli. /t,rr hdLrr how pcoplc will behave on thcbnsis ol rheir lmtonical fc{turLs, rnd in bcing prcpa.ed to use suchfealurcs ro tell r person lbout thcir chrmclcr in ! way thal olerules

t r l

TI]E OIALECIIC OF REA5ON

the evidenc€ oflh.iractions andtheir own sell-knowledSe. As a resulr.this sciencc is forced lo treat characteFhns as hiddcn disposirions. idesp€ratc mano€uvre rhat has no melhodological credibilily. In rhis€onlext, Hcgcl approvingly quores CeorS Chrisroph LichrenberS, whohad written a pamphlet criricizing Lavarer: lf anyon€ eid. ..You

cenainly act like an honesl man, but I s€e trom your face lhar you deforcing youNelf to do e and are a rogue al hcad"l withour a doubl.every honcst fellow ro the end oftime. whcn lhus add.essed. will reronwith a box on the enr ' (s€r PS: l9 l )

llcgcl rhcn moves on ro , discussion ofphrcnolosy. which seesthe oulcr as .n immediate expression ofrhc inncr. where rhc obviousplacc for such cxprcssion to occur is the skull. llegel lirst poinrs ourthat it is dillicuh lbr thc phrenologist ro say whclhcr ir is rhe skutt rhatdctennrncs the nalure offtc brain or the brnin thll dclcrminesthe shapcofthc stullr bur even rtlb€rc is some son ot pr.-.nnblishcd harmony'bdween thc two. n is harder slill lo do {nything morc rhan tind mereltltistical comhtions b€tween rhc shap€.rnd srrr ot n p(Bon s headand rhcircharactcr rnd behavrour. whcrc rhc$ concl,rnons nre no moresiSnilicanr rhan rhe corelations thar miShr cxisl bctween rain and ahousewrlc s warhday. The phrenologisl clnnol usc rhcsc corretarionsto makc mc n'nglul predictionsl iDstead hc rclcfls rgnin to ihe nononof Lrnrcalircd dispos(rons. which allow hrm t0 nvoid nukinS suchprcdicliotls in n wly rhar is nonethelcss scicntitically spurious (asspunous rs thr houscwite in Hegcl s cxrnrplc who claims rhrr todaylhcrc

's a lcndrncy lo rain. becaule lodxy is r w shday. alrhough lhis

r .ndcncy docs nol imply th. t r t actul l ly ! i / / n in) t tcgct is coni idcntthl t Rcr in $r l l comc to sce through this r)n or ' lbsurdr i - . and ind.rnS n) $ ' l l r rcogn' ,?e th l r scicnol i . rxr()nr l r ! . ( rnnot doJust ice to(rtr exJrrCrr) lor {L'll-determrn!non:

Ihc . ro(1. r t r \ r rner of r l l , .ons.r(rN Rcr lnr $r l l r ( jccr our ofhrnd nr.h x \eicncc ofphddql\ rh\ orh.r oh{.^arion{lnr \ l rncl or ' \c l l 'conscious Reason $hr(h. hr \ i r8 l l ra ined agl , ' r rp\e (n lhc.ognrnrc proccss. hrs grr \pcd r l unr rc l l igcnt ly rnr $dy rhrt r rkcs thc ouler lo bc rn c\ f rcsion ol thc inncr. .l IJhf r t r lhcsrs $c drc here conccnrcd $irh ht is Lr i rs s idcs rhcir{ l i ! idur l i t } lhr t is corscious of i lsc l l , xnd lhc ubstract ion ol

TXE DIALTCTIC OF RFA9ON

cilemalily that has bccom€ wholly a Zrina that inner b€if,8 of

Spirit gnsped as a fi,(ed non-spirilual bcins. opposed ro such a

b€ing. But Reason, in its role ofobservcr. haling rcach.d th'rs far.

s.cms also to have rEached it\ p.al. at which point it must aban-

don itselfand do a right-aboul lum: for only whal is *holly bad

is implicitly cMrged wilh the immediale necessily ofchanging

round inlo its opposrle.(PS: 205 6)

The riBhl-about tum lhal Rcasrn now tlkcs is one we hale

|.cn belore wiihin lhc dialeclic, namcly a movc f.om theory to prac_

ticc, as consciousncss gocs liom obscning lhe world. lo seeints ilself

.! !n atsent wilhin iti the lintilations ol scicntilic ralionalism secm lo

.how that thc cssence ofthc subjccl lics in its capacity for frec sell-

&termi'i.tion. $ rhat consciousncss no* sels itsclf lpart fronr lhe

world of cau$lly detemined objccrs:

Thc given object is ... dcrcmined as a neSatile objecl:howcvcr. is dct.nnrncd as se//tonsciousness

o!€rrgarnsi it: in olhtr words.lhc catcSory which. in the coursc

ofobsenalion. has run lhrouSh lhc l;nn ol hcns is now [x)srtcdin lhe lbm of beingjbr'selil conscu'sness no lonScr rims lo

lrrl;tself innttdut.h . bttl 1() prr u.. ilscllh! 'ls

own trcr'!'ty

l l is i / r . / / lhe End . l which l rs {c l i ( r r r rnN. *hcrcas in i t { t tc

dl obser ler i t was conccare( l of l ly $ i rh rhrngs(PS: :0e)

l lc tc l rh$ mo!es l iom ()bse^rrg Rcx\o . \ !h i .h hr\ i rund th.

l { l t ls l : r . l ion p( 'mised by rhcorcr l . r l r ( r .nee ki h. r l lusor! . to rc l r \ .

Rcr{nr ' lPs : l l ) . \h ieh hol th rr \ l . . t r l th l r .onscro

lo 1,,..1 al hont nr lhc \,tr[l on(. rl \cc\ ho$ n5 purnoscs cm b.

fullillcd $nh;r rr. llcgcl nrlt.s cl.ar. t|lcrl:li,re. lhrtJUst as Obscr\m8

R.!!'n rcpcrts rl ! highcr lc!cl lhc oblccr_!.nlrcd oullNk ol( tnscrolsn.ss. so Acli\ e Rc!!)n rqrcrts rl :r highcr letel lhc subjccl_

ccntrcd oulkxll ol Se11'(irnscrcu$ncss: Jusl as Rclson. ln lhe rolc oi

ob\cncr. rcpealed. in lhc elcmcnl ol lhc crlc8ory, the movcmcnl

of{ rrr nxlvr.rr. viz. scnsc-ccririnly, perccplion. rnd lhe LJndcrsland-

nU, so $ill Reason ngain itnr lhi()ugh thc dorble movcnrcnl ol

112 113

IHE DIALECTIC OI iEA!ON

self-consciousness. and pass ove. from ind€p€ndence into irs freedom'(PS: 2l l ) .

Looking back on this s€ction. some may feel that Hegel\ stancewith resp€cl to Obsening Reason rnust be modified. ei$er o' h;sror-ical Srounds (Heg€l's criticisms here apply only ro the scienrific ideasa.d theories ofhis period, and rest on an irnpoverish€d piclurc ofwhatsc'ences such as psycholosy can achieve). or on philosophicat ones(Hegel here berrays aspects of his Romanlic distrusr of science. ddislrusl thll sccms ourdoted in the modcm world). This may be soi bur;t could equrlly bc arSued (ct Maclntyre 1972a) rh lleSel's criti-cisms apply no less fundamentally ro cuncnt developm€nts withinbroadly physicalisr approaches ro human bchaviour and mentatiry. andlhal llcgcl's positron is nol Romantic in any narow sense, but jsmcrcly concemed lo hrghlight thc dimculrres of aficmpting io applyphysicalistic explanations across lhe boa.d. Thrs is { position whichmany todny (allhou8h noi ol course all) would see as pcrfeclly reason-able, and they may well take our capacily for tiee aclion to show whyit is inappropriale ro apply the physicalistic modcl ro rhe hurnan renlm.in a way that is also ernphasizcd by Hegel. Ofcourse. rhe debatc hismoved on

'n lerms of its depth and sophisrication since Hegel s day.

and developm€nrs in science ofwhich Hegelknew nothins have playedlheir pan in this: but lhese issues remdin cudent. and Ilcgcl s Seneralposi t ion remains ! l i le opt ion wrthin th is discussion

Active Reaion

tfugcl cont inues his analvsrs of how Reasof (r ies k) nrake i tset l - . r thomc In lhc wor ld in th is sect ion and t t t nc\ t (cnr i t tcd .Thc

r\.lLrrlr/ltldr ol Rrtion.l Sell-CinNciousn.ss TI(ugh Ic ()*nAcr i r i ry x.d Indi \ idu{ l i ry Whrch Takes l lsc l l To Be Rert In And l :orl rscl l ' ) In. . .s id.r ing rhcsc sect ions. i l is inr l ron.rr to take ink)recounr thc Intn)duelou. prcrmblc to the l i rsr of rhcn (PS: 2l l t7) .I legel nrnkcs. lcrr hcrc lhal thc nrr legies hc considcB in lhe resl o itltis ch.rptcr are rll oncs that takc !s th.ir sunjng point .modem'

nssumptlons rbout lhc indi ! idualnnd his placc in the soci . lwor ld. rndyr should be contrrstcd with the less individualist outlook of pre,modcrn (stecinc.rll) Crcck) dccounts ol-whrt ir mearF to be ar homc

114

TI lE O IAL E CTlC OT REA'ON

in lh€ world . Only once lhese 'mod€m standpoints have been shownto be inad€quate will consciousness 'tum back'to se€ how this prc-mod€m outlmk came to be losl (in the chapter on Spirir). Hegel'scharacterization of lhe fundarnental differences between the ancientrnd modem conceptions ofthe individual here is therefore vital to thercsl of his discussion.

Ancients and modems

For the Geeks, in ttcgel's vi€w, it was rccepted as ariomatic lhar theonly way in which an indilidual cnn corne to lind praclical satrslac-lion within lhe world is insjde the srate or /xrr.r. so the queslion ofsalisfaction tbr the individual is imorediately taken to bc a s@ial qucs-tion: only ifthe individual lives within a propcrly constituted socialframe*o* ca" he ever find himsclf ar homJ. Acconling ro tlegel.rhe (ireeks thereforc hcld thal .econcilialion belween the individuallnd the wo.ld could only bc achieved by an individual who lrved in.ccordance wilh the cusloms and lradilions of a propedy constilulcdcommunif. tiegel outlines this view as tbllows:

In d f.cc nalion. therefore. R$son rs in lrurh realized. lt is ap.csenr l iv ing Spir i l in shich the indiv idtr l l nol only l inds i lscssenual character. 1.e his un,lcNrl ind pd.li.uhr nrlurc.expressed. ard presenl lo him in lhc li,rm of lhinshood, bul lshinrsell this csscncc. rnd .lso hrs rexli/cd lhrt essennrl ch.tr-acler. Thc wiscn mcn ol-tnliquily h!!e lhcrelire declared lhal$isdom and ! i r lue con\rsr in l i ! ing rn nccordance wi lh thccusloms ofonc-s nul ion

(PS: :1,1)

In idopl inS rhis posi l ion, rhe $rsest men ofanl iquuy showed lhcmsclvcs to bc th inking al a t rne belore thc;ndiv idual had lcdrnl lodistnrguish hrmsel l t ronr his sociol ro l . , .nd lo rcglrd himscl f rs nnindcpcndent source of morNl N:iscssmcnt. dnd whcn thc di!rsionsbclwccn selland $cicly had not bccn lell Ilcgelpresenls a sketch olthis p.crnodern social lifc in the prcceding paragraphs (one that hechbordtcs c lscwhere: c l l ETW: 154 5. PH: 250 77):

115

r

I

|.1.,

111

This ethical ,l'drtrrcc. laken in its abstract univcrsality, is onlylaw in lhe fom of rro"S,irli but it is no less immed;ately actualret:co".r.iols"ejr. or it is crsmu. The single individual con-sciousn€ss, conversely, is only this exisienl unit in so far as ilis aware of ihe universal consciousness in ils individuality asits rBz being. since what it does and is. is the universl custom. . . Thcy r.c conscious of being these separate i.dependenrbeinSs throuSh rhe sacrifice ofthe;r particularity. and by havingrhis unrve6al Subslance as lheir soul and essence. just as rhisuniversal agarn is rheir own doing as panicular individuals. oris lhe work rhey hrve produced . . . The /dror. oflhe iDdividualfor his own rceds is just as much a sarisfaction ofrhe needs ofolhe.s as of his own. and the satishction ot h;s own needs hcobtains through the labour ol olhers. As the individual in his,tdiriduul wofk ake^dy unlons(itluslr perlbnns . lr^r'lszlwort, so again he also performs thc univeNal wo.k as his.orr.n /r objccl; thc whole becomcs, as d whole. his own work.for which he sacrifices himselfand precisely in so doing receivesback liom ir his own self . . This unily ol beins-for-another ormakrng oneself a Thins, and of beins-for-scli this uni!crs!lSubs(ance. spcaks ils !rtv.^d1 1drar.€d in thc customs rnd lawsof its nation. 8ul this existent unchrngeable essence is lheexprcssion of the very individualiry which seems opposed k)ili the lass pruclaim what each individu.rl is rnd docsi rhejndi ! idual knows lhcm not only !s his univcrsal obj .c l ivc th inshood. but cqudlly knows himsclf in thcm. o. kDows thcn aspdrr i . r l r r . , / in f i is own indi ! idual i tv. . rd in cach ol h is le lknv.r l iz .ns ln lh. ur i !ersr l Sp'r i t . lhelelnre. cnch ha\ only lhecljn,l'nl) ('l himsell: of finding in lhc rcrurl world nolhinS bulhinrsel l : hc is rs cedl in of rhe olhcrs rs hc is of h imscl t Ipcrcci \c in ! l l of lhcm lhc f ic l thal th.y know thcmselves lo beonly lhcsc indcpcndenl beings. lLrs l as lonr IJ)ercerve in themthc li$ unirt {nh others rn such si\e thal. just lrs rhis unilyerists tltrough me. so il erins thtuugh rhe orhers loo I .c8!rdthcn1 !s nlyscl l rnd mysel fas thcm.

(PS: 212 l4)

THE DIALECIIC Of REA5ON

As lhe conclusion here indicales. Hegel in many ways took it thal the

Orcek social world was one in which lhe individual could lind himself

'.t homc'. where each has only the certainty ofhimself. offinding in

th. aclual world nothins but himself. There is her€ no division ofthe

individual from the customs of his sGiety, of sell-rnreresr ftom tl|€

icniral interesl, of individual moral convictions fiom the laws laid

down by the 2016: in lhis sense. tlesel (like many of his contempo-

nries) saw the lile of the citizcn in tilih-century Athens as a model

for the sort ofharmony and .cconcillaijon he thought a proper undcr

.tlndins of rhe self and the $orld miShl p.ovide. (Cl Schiller 1967:

ll.'l do nol underatc the adlanlages which the human racc loday.

considered as a whole and seighed in rhe balance ol inrellecl. can

boasl in the face ofwhal rs best in lhe nncienl world. llul il has to take

|lp the challcDse in senied ranks. and ler whole mcasure ilselragarnn

whoh. What individual Modem could sally fonh ind engage. man

ryainst man, wilh an individual Alhenian for tho pri/e ol humdnity?'

For a helplul backSround 1o Hegel s discussion here, see tb.ncr I998:

l7 125.)llowelcr. Ilesel makes clcdr !l this poinl thdt Rc!$n does nol

|nd cannot lny longer take this Grcck conceplion scriously in ils way

ofmaking i lsc l f a lhome' l fo. Reirson begins wi lh ! concept ion of lhc

frcc indi!idual that is nol recosniTed b) thc (neck\. ! conccpli()n lhal

lhcn lcrds to divisions nol apparent in thcir lrial world, hclwccn the

indi \dur l and lhc cusknn\ ofsocic l t . belscen lh. indi \ idur l and thc

8lncrnl food. and bcl$ecn th. i rd i \ idur l rnd r l t h$\ o l - lhc s la lc

Thu\, lionr this modcrn p.Npcclilc. eusrdD lnd rrldirion al)peir as

n|or l r l ly r rbrrr ! ! / i the indir idur l no lonscr iL lcnl i l lc \ hnnsel fwi lh rhc

r0lcrcsts ofthc groupr rnd lhc lrNs cnaclcd f') the slrle chsh sith thcnrtrrl ralhorit) of lhc indirrdurl ('drsckrsress crn llrus no longcf

iiiri rrsclf'ar home in rhe tlorld in r wry thlt w.s alliltble ro the(;rrcls. but *hich is lo( lo Rclson:

Rcn$n,,ra/ wi lhdruw l iom lhis happy sntei tbr thc l i fe ol a

tiee people is only in pnnciple o. immediately thc /t?//rr ofan

clhic,rl ordcr. In other words, lhe ethical orde. exisls merely assomerhins ai,?n . . [T]hc sinsle. individual conscrousness as rr

cxis ls i rnmedialely in thc.cal ethical ordcr. or in lhe nal ion, 's

IHE DIALECTIC Of f iTA5ON

a solid unshaken lrusl in which Spiril has nor, for thc indr!rdunl.rcsolled itsell inlo ils dhl/z.r nromenrs. and thercfo.e he is nolawarc of hnnself as beins i pure indivrduality on his ownaccount. llul once he has arrilcd dt this idea. as he musl. lhenthis t n..rdl. unity with Spinl. lhc [merel ,lihta of himsclf inSptrit. his trusl, is lost. Isolared and on his own. n is he who isnow lhe essencc. no longer uni lersal Spir i r . . . In thus est i rb-l ishins hinrsel l . . . rhe indi ! idnal hos thercby phccd hinrsel inopposirion rc rhc laws lnd custonrs. These arc regrrdcd as mereiderN h!\ing no absolure esscntidUly. dn abnracr lhcory $ithoutany r l r l i ly . $hi lc hc as rh 's panrculNr ' l is h is own l ! rng rruth.

{PS: 2l , l l5)

1r is !rral n' rccognizc. thcr.lbft'. thal lhc strur.gics rrk!'n up by Rcrsonin th. ne\l l$o scclions. k) shos thut prrcticrl conscknrsnes\ can llndsrlrshclron In rhe qodd. arc on.s adoptcd by consciou$eis d/,{, lhis

'iodcm notn)n ol rndjldurlily hrs cmerged: rhey !rc nor str.regics the

Grccks rould hrvc undcrstood. rs thc) de.h wi th such issrcs.gr indlhe bnckgurnd ol a social conceplion thit Rcrson hirs o\crlurncd

N.w. as wc shr l l scc, f legcl scls out k) show thnr such indi \ idurlist sttulegics irc doomcd ro hrlore. nnd lhxr som. prn ol rhe Crcckprclur. nrtrsl bc recovcrcd if $e arc ro lind th. kinrl ol hrnnonybelwccn scl f !n(1 sof ld lhrn Rcason t lkcs t ( ) he l lossibl . Norcthelcss.hcre as c lscwhcft Uegel rs r l pNins to str ls\ rhrr thc indiv idur l is t rclum lrkcn hy Rcrnni rs rrc\r lablc.nd phgr$si lc l .or though rh.( i fcek crr i / rn rvds rr honrc , r lhe *or ld. th is hnnron) rcmrinsunlhrr l i rg i ,n( l unrcfecl i lc , hased or an urqu.{ tnr)rng recct l rn(e ollh. ! ) . r r l or l . r rnd ol- thc in( l i \ r r lur l s nlrc. $rrhin i t . ! t r t r l ! p() I ]ereor( . f lkn ol i rd ! idux r t \ hrs cnNgrd tel l I , l { : \ t : l ) I t rget rherel( t re hotcs l (J sh( 's ho$ $e crn l . rn l i (nn r l ic \ )err l con.. f tnf l ot 'lhc ( i re. l \ r f r l l ro$ rhc l i r i l ! ( l rndrv ul l is l | . \ t lx tegrcs ol Rcrson crrl r . In ' tn ' re( i u l ion. sr thour,r f (h going br ik n, r l ic ( i reeks. \m.rhrnt $h,eh nr cm udi !du hsm hxs nrxr lc In)possihle. Ihus.al though lhc ( i r .cks wcrc Nble kJ bc ar honre in th. ror ld l r |$r \lhr l $rs sr l is l lc lor ' - l i ) r thcir o*n t rnc. r l i \ not !n Nns*er thnl c{rhe salrsh(t( t ry In,r / o$n t imc. whcr r grur lc. degrcc ol indLlrdu-!1,$rr hrs cmcrgcd () i rhe olhcr hrnd. l tgr l \c ls oul k, sho$ thr l

C Of REA50N

nr cn dnswcrslo this queslron have nol bccn ible lo succeed. becauseth.y hrvc all been based on lhe division bctween selfand society thalthrs Intllidualisl turn h.s set in plice; he lhereby sets the conlext forh$ own atiempt to resohc lhis qucslion rn a way thal d.!ws on rol,lhcic lraditions. a middlc wry lhal will become clcdrcr once thc one-.r'lcdncss of individualislrc Reason h.s hecn cxposed.i

Pleasurc and Necessity

l l .gcl bcgins his discussion ol-Acl i !e Reason wi lh ! subscel ion

3nlrtlcd Plcasurc lnd Ncces$(y . where .onscidrsncss holds thal the

b(ri way k) nnkc itsell lccl at home in lhc wo.ld is nol by obeying

cu$torn rnd l rndi t ion (rs lhe wisesl nrcn ol xnnqulry held). or by

.{qtririnE ! rheoretical underslNndins ol nalurc (as ()bsenrng Rcd$nhcldr. hut by lunring b lhc $orld rs a vehicle lir. plea{re Nnd cnloy_

r||.nr: thc indMdtral ;s scnt oul rnlo rh. wodd by his own spiril b

*.1 hrs happ;ncss (Pl i : 215). I t rs therelbrc thc l i rs l cxprcs$on o, lhe|ndrvrrlurlinic oullook xdopled hy Rerlnr:

In {) l l f .s i t hr \ l i f icd r t \c l l or l o l thc c lh ieal Sub(rncc ntdt Ic l funqui l bcins ol- lhoLrgI l t (J i1\ b. inS / , , t / / . , l ht t \ l . l ih.hird lh. hw ofcu\ lofr tn . \Lsr.nec. lh. knowlc( lgt x.qui f .dthroush obsc^r l r . rnd lhcorJ". r r r 8re\ s l tudo$ shi .h is Inrhc rer ol pr \nDg oul o l s ight . lor lhe hr lcr a tu lhcr r kno$-le( l8e ( ' l {nDclhLng shos. berns- l i t r -sel l xnr lxcrurI ly arc olhcrrhn rhost ol rh is s. l l : (on\eioLrsi ls. Inncrd of rhe hertcrr l ) -\ ( t r rnt St i r i l o l lhc urrr(Nxlrr ! ( ' l kro$lcr lsc rrd rel io. rn\hrrh lhc l ic l ing rn( i . , r t ( i )nrcnr ol indi \ i ( iur l , r ) xrc sr i l l .d.lher. hrs enlcrc( l , i r , r i l th. St i f i l o l (hc c. ,1h. r i , r {h i .h t rucJ(tur l r l ) rs nrc.elv t l r r t h. ing $hieh is lhc rertLdl i l ! ot thc nr l i

' i rnr l e( t r r \c0sncs\. . . l t p lur tgcs rh.r . t ; rc ink) l i l . rnd

,r , lo lgc\ ro lhc tu11 thc furc in( i i !duxl i l l in xhieh i l r fpetrN( lS. l l l l1r)

l l . r ( l r ,nrr f t \ rs rhis oul l ( r )k qrrh lhc posi tor o l ( )bscrv 'ng Rerst 'rh.r r ! rL( . ( ler l u by miking rei i rcnec to (nrelhc s t :Nusl . a l lL rng ( , lhc

, ' r t r / . r / { ,x2l ( l?90). wh.rc hc tchocs Nlcphis lo s wotuis rn nlat inglur { l \ i ,Nlc( lgc rnd theory. \ l tho!8h..s wc hxrc scen. f legcl druNs

I 19

TNE OIALECTIC OF RTASON THE O ALECI

lrhlehl is scplrated liom thchcrn (Psr 2221. This ibm ol conscrous-

r.r (rhrch commenlalo.s hrlc Sc erully asso!iated $ilh Rousscau s

Lvoyard Vrcar: see Rousseau l99ll thcrclbre mainlains thal thc world

l. ruodnal place. becnLrsc rl thrnts rt can brinA aboui a sdicly in

rlueh,rU hdividuls wrll find rhc h ppiness thcy lre lmktns lor. oncc

tLy rrc olbwcd to lsren ro whrr therr h$rls tell them.A.cordrnS to Hegcl, ho$c\cr.lhrs lbrm of.on\cnnsness lr.cs

rtcrul drllicuhres l-irst. lhrs nErrl rclirmcr wrll bccomc rncrersrnSly

.||cnllcti In the troccss ol conrlnrelrng hrs Ncial ptugr0mmt, Ns rl

$cx on a uni\ersalizing r d gcnor.rlr/rn8 lsp.ct irt odds $rth lhc

Fnrul lnty of rhc hs ol lhc hcra : tbr in i ts real '7arn)n r t reccrvcd

d|a lornr ol dn llllirmatrvcl /,!r,r,.nd rs no\! a !rit1,ad/ po*cr lor

rhr(h rhis plaicular hcdn is ! n[ t lcr of indl l ] t rence, $ lhtr l lhc ! rd;

tdunl. hy selling up his own o r {ncc. n(, lonScr ilnds il lo bc h's

o*n (l'S ::-l). Se.ond. thrs (onrcrou\nc\\ conrcs lo see llrrl ollrcrs

nry rNt ,d.niili ihcms.l!.\ srlh lts *,c01 PioSrumrne. Jusi r\ it dtl

tsa rlcntrl! wilh thc so.'ral p()Btlnnnc lhlt lhcadt ex'ri.d. lcndrng it

b dopl r .ontradlchry dhnnsr\cncsr k, rhe b.arts ol olbcr\:

' l ( ) l thLh do nol l ind 1n rbrs .dntcnt rhc tu l l i lhnenl of rhc h* ol / / ' .1/

h..nr, hut ruthcr th.t ol sonr.on. cl\.. rn(l. n.!.is.ly in aeeoidxnccrrth lhc uorvcrsol hw thxt cuch sl[ll li l m $hrl rs lis li o*n h.'!n.

dFy trrn,r8rrnst thc rcr l r l j / i , 'hx\ \ f r L| l ) . rusl rs ht lunr.d rSrr s l

lh3 \ th! \ . iusl rs the ,ndr!( lur l i l l l rn l indr onh_ dr. r iS|( l lxs. n, 's

h. hnl ! r l rc h.rr ls ol mcr lh.rN. l \ .s. of to\cJ l ( ) h is c\(el lcrr t r r r l f r 'lh{h i . , l ( lc l rshble ( l 'S l : .1) lh ln l . i l r ln ' e,rncs ro l i fd lhr l othcts

nr\ 0 l l l l \c r l nr rhr D3nr. o l lhr . \ r \ l i rg r t r r l . r . so r l crrr nr , l (D8el

r . r . ( I th i r . ( l . r i \ .h.n l ( , lh( \ , l l .1 , t ( l \ r t lu! ls l l r , r r l rhrs { l ! 'nc

nl nur, ln onl , rJn.c shteh r l lourd x ' r r o.(ctr . ( l ror lk{ t l \ 10 hc a

| t . t t r t r rh, t r \ In \hr lh t r . r ( ! ' t \ r r \ (^\n s. l t kr $h' .h ' r . l 'ng\

{ r

||r t'rrr,(ulrr n cpln{lc.t hcJ oftt(^.d k} thc u.,\..srl htrr xl\olhr \nht(l t(' lhal ordlunlt so(ld hr\c no consck,usne\\ ol llrcnr

- l t . r hul 1 l l i r rd ' th lhr \ otuf i f l rnec i \ rcr l l ) innrhr[rr !d bt rhL

!rr{rrsne\\ o l r l l , rh rr s thc l rs ol . !$r" hcrn (Ps: l l . l 5) .

l { . (L l *nh thcsc eonlndrelrorrs th. ldw ol lhe hc.n bceonrcs' lh. l t tory ol scl l -coneql l t rher. l l . ! . l s m)sl ob!Nu\ modcl rsKlr l

Mrrn fnrn s(hr l lcr ' \ p l r t tht ld ' t ' l \1. \ t . lhrs l i inn ol .onsck'usncss

tr . i r r r . t l ( , t rNtrracyrhtorr \ r . b l , tnrrB lhc eorupr iDg in luencc ol . r r l

a pn.nllel bel{ccn lhc opening oflhis sccli,)n and lhc orcnin8 oflhc'Sell-( onscxrusncss scclion. and t{lks hcrc ol aD rmmedi te will or,dhtrdl int'ul.r' which oblains

'ls srlislrcli{rn. shich is itself lhc

conl.nt ol a lrcsh impulse ( PS: 21 5 )- tl esel nonrt heless distinguishcsFausl s pursu'l ol plcasure liom mere desrre: lbr

'n his scxual relation

silh Crctchcn. lhcrc rs a Sreater degrec ol rccognnt)n. thc visioD ol'lhc unity ol thr tulr Indcp.ndcnl scll'con.courncs\c\' (PS. llE)t lo$$cr. l lc8( l $rsg.ns thr t whi lc lsust t . . l \ . hn( l ot-hedonistrcr l ( ichmcnl k ' ( , rc(ehcn. shc ( i l l remrih l i ) r hrnr r \chr. le lbr p le.surc, in rhf scnsc thi r ' rhe obiect which IndNidur l i ry cxpcr iences a\

. , r ls . r (2. . hrs no contcnt (PS: 2lr)) . $ $hr lc h! ury wrnt lo entcrin lo I Drtr( . lh i (x l re l l l ron s i lh hfr , hc l i ls h is eonrnr i lmcnl k)se!'klrr8 plersurc nn'lns hc crnnot do s'l hc rcnm\ bound b) lhrconscqlcnccs ol hrs t rcr wi lh \ ' lq,hrsro. Rlrhcr rhir eon\rrrul ln8 r I .

' l .s \cnec ol rhc nldr\rdu! | . p lcrsure sechrr ! noN rppcrrs a\ an alrer

iconnr lnt on hrs hrppr ie\s- ! l ind ol ( \ rent l ncecsirv or lar . t rh, . l rscc'ns JCI l(' d.stoy hrn (ir.a-nusnc\\ rhu\ n|0cs lrom sccinS pl.!

lsure rs In l I \k lo l k ' ' . .n] l !xas t rn ' l r rsr l - \o, lcrhrns $hich st .nd'lorcr asarn' t thc Indtrrdor l rnd l . rds rrJ hr\ do$r l i l l : Ihc d61rd. /. , . , , \vrr t lcrc lnrc hrs th. chrrrc lcr o l lhL nrLrel ! ncgir l r \ . - uncof i r .

ln( l l1, l r t iF,{Lr , ' l rnr \ ( r . . , I \ . , { ' shr. ' , IL i . \ r , l ' r . ,1| | \ r , .1,r .1 'c, l r .

\prccls ( l )Sr l l0 1l

fhe Law of the Hea.t

1r rhc n. \ r \uh\crrr ! ) . . r r r l lcLl thc t . r$ ( i l rhc l lerrr and lhc | ren1)(n St l l ' ( (ntru,r ' . l l ( !c l r ,nNklcA r l i ,nn

' , l , , r j \ r { r { r . ! ! rhxr rhjr l '

r r h. , \ . ,n. \ |1. ,n. ,1r( ! , '1tr

rh! f r , r , !n( l . i r l . I r ! rh. l l t , ' r \nr l \r l , f . . , r . ( l r , ' I , f . , , , . ,1,n ' . , . r nc!c",r \ ' , r r l ,ncNt, l ' 1, , { jo r$r\ $1r l jr l . rh.r(h\ rLrnrfs .$. t \ l ' , rn rr \ r , t r , t l l . , r { t r ! . \ ( . l rn8 n) r mtr . hrshni , r \1. ,1 , , r ( , .n n r l r t f . . r ,or f o l , ' rh. ' , . rn,L r ' tJnrrNrrng lhc s. l l i r .r i l r r r I l r l l l ,s - ' l l ) Ihr , l i ,nn ( j l ror j \ ! t rsrr( \s ho( l \ lhI l c!er\r rdr\ nt , , r l , , / ! r / r . h. , rh l ( r , ) l jnd l r r f I nen hrr r r l r jor t l , ' \o h.cru\ !th. so\ . rcrAn r(( l rn l ! ( ) l rhe r d, ! ( lur l , rnn hr\ scnsrbrhrv hr!e norbcen re(oSnr/ fd r l i . i r idr ! idur l hu\ nor h(e rLLNcd t() l i r l low thchs ol lh( h(rr l . r f t l $\r . rd hNs bccn { , lJ t . \ rcd l { , lhc Nwcr of thechurch rn{ l \ l r t ( . rhr t 0utho. i t r r ; \ . lL\ , r r r ' ) ( l hunun ordin!n((

120

THE DIALECTIC OF REAsON

social forces tbr the refusal oforheF ro.ioin ir rn irs brtllc aSainsr thcenablishmenl: 'Tbe heart-lhrob for lhe weliare ol humaniry thereforcpasses into the ravihgs ot an insanc self,conceit. jnlo the fu.y ofconscrousness toprcseNe'rself Irom deslruclion . . 1t therelbre spcaksof the universal ordcr as . peruersron of lhe law of lhe head and ilshippiness. a perversion inlented by lanatiul pricsts. Slunonousdcspors and rheir mrnions, who compensate lhemselves fo. rheir owndegradilon by de-rradrng and opprcssing othen. a perversion whichhas lcd lo rhc nlmeless niisery of dcluded nrinkrnd (PS: 226).Abandonrng rhc srance ofan idealislic socixl rclbrnrer. consciousnessnow comes lo \rcs othcrs in more cynrcal lemrs, !s it s.es that jn lheirhc..ts. rhe beha!utr oforhcff is rLrled by sclf-inlcrcst, rnd that rhrs rslhc way ol the wodd : Whl l sccms lo be publ ic,r . / . r . thcn. is thrsunrvcrsil strtc ofwar. in \fhrch cNch wr.ns what he cnn lbr hunsclt:e\cculcstustrcc on the indr! idul l i ty of othcrs and eslnbl tshcs his own.which is equr l ly nul l i t icd rhnrugh lhc lct ion oforhers. l t rs the wryol the world . rhe show ofan uDchangins cou6! thar is only ,&1rr krbc { universal i ly . rnd shosc coDtcnt 1s rathe. lhc csscncclcss play ot 'eslabl ishing rnd nul l lyrng indiv idur lx ies tPS: 227 U). lhus, .hhough

]the indi" iduNl here In solnc seDsc scts rhe uni \ersul o lcr hnnscl l . he

ldoes so in I srnpl ist ic mannef. as$rnr inSthrt . l lnrust shrre his conc.p

/ t ior o l shnt rs n8ht. lc ! ! ing hinr l ( ) sec nothinS bur rhc $orsl r l ) l i lcsl in thos. $ho ( io not.

Virtue and the Way of the Wo d

l lcgel ro\ m^cs t( ' . d iscussion ol \ InucNndth! 'Wr)ol thcWorld.t rh$( \ i r rUe Inc{ to sho\r hotr thrs cgorsnr f rnnor Lcrd con\crousness1o lc. l r l l ror fc ( i i \en l lc !c l s crrhcr to{ t r \ . j r !oct l t ron ol rhc( i r . . l ,s . r l Inr !hr hc c\ |cd. , t thr t h. ro0kl hr \e R)m. symp.rhy sr thlhc \ l rnr l torn( xdoplcd b! \ ' i r lu. i but bc.rrncs elcNr thr t 1 l i \ I, r r l r r , \crstrn ' o l rha t \ r r ron {rctr .sf f t .d ferhrps by rhc l l . r l ot 'shl l le\hur\ r rhf l Ls hr\ loqN here. $hi .h {c.s rhe pursur l o l t inuc rsrn , r ru lk, / J i r , rc( l . sonrcthLng rhrr cxn bc {chic lcd e!c. jn a coruptso.rc lv In lh is $ry. on lhc nr emconccnl i (nrol \ i r ructheindi ! idu! jerr r.hi.!c ruc hrpfrncss rnd crn conrc kr licl dr honrc even In r$or ld rhNr rs st iarul l ly r rd cthic l l ly ronrn (unerhinE thrr Anskrte.

122

for ci(amplc. would nol have acccpled. as he look it fo. grunted thal

th. cthic.l outlook oirhe individurl was shaped by thal ofhis society)

Hcgclargues that as a .esult. while modern knights ofvinue prelend

b b€ concemed to reform those corrupted by the way ofthe world'.

thcn bnllle lbr lhe good is really a sham. lD fact, it is hrrd for Vinue

b i{y whal this corruplion is supPoscd 1o consist in. and il cnds up as

io morc lhan cmpty rhetoric, for il cMnot really exPlain what rs wrong

*hcn (as Bemffd Mandelille claimed in his Iirrlc d/ r/td A.u. and as ,Addnr Srnith hld argued lhll the caprtalist economy showed) il appc!.s I

lhrl scll-inleresl crn lcrd lo the comnron good:

Virluc in lhe anci.nl eorld hrd ils own dcfinilc sure meaning.for ir hrd in th. V,iritrrl \l)\tutu. of thc nrllon a tbundllion

lull of nrcannrs. rnd lbr 1ts purposc an .tctual good dl.cNdy in

ci is l .nc. . aonscquenr ly. loo. i t $as not diR. lcd dgr inn the

acrual world ns ag!inst $nrclhing A(r.tdlh l,trcrt..t. nnda8! in( ! wny of lhc \or ld Bul lhe l i f tuc $c rr . 'considcr ing '

hxs i ls bcing outsidc ol lhe spir i tur l subnancc. i t is an untcNlvinuc, r v inuc in imrginaldr and n.mc only. whi .h lxcks tht l\uh.r fu,ud . . 'nr(nr I l , r ' c , 'nR(r l ( ,n ' h 'u i s. l h F lL. ,mlht ( \ t ( r i rnr(

'hrr In( $r ! . ' f rhJ \ . ' h l r ' r , r 'F hr ' i , ' i r

l , r )kcdr for i ls real i ty is lhc rer l i ly o l lhc uni \crsr l . Wrrh th is

lcs{n in mind. lhe idcr ol hr inging r l t 'Sood Inr() e\ i \ lcn. . by

nrcrns ol lhc sN.t i l icc ol rndirniur l i l r " is rbrn( io icd: l i r r indi! [ l i ly 1s prcciscl ] lhe rc lur l iT in! o l rhr l cr is ls onl ] Inpnnclple. rnd thc [ le^eAron.crsc! lo bc rcgutd.d Ns r Pcncr-son ol lhc good. Inr , l is in fuel rcr l l ) lh. conrcAidr 01-rhc

8ood. 0s r mere I ' ] id. Ink) tn rc lur l c\rstdr. . : rh. molcnrcnl o l

In( l iv idu! l i rv,s th. r . r l iq ol rhc rui ! . rsr l(PS: l l .1 5)

I hr \ . $hr lc Vinue sorks sxh r c lcrr rn l i thesis b. l$ccn lhe indiv iduNl

.r trnuous !trd lhc lndr\;du{l a scll'lnrercstcd. bceruse 1r s.ls thc

j . r r l o l the eo nnuni ly ag0nsl lhe good oi lhc Indi ! rdul , l lcgcl

|r||$c\ rhar thls rcns on i liilure to rcLnowledse lhe dialccticNl inlcr-

nh| | . ,n hct$ccD thc l \o. whereby lhc uni leAalgood cNn bc sal is l ied

rhrnrrh thf fursui l o l - rndi ! idur l intcrcsts. ( ( l l PR: 1199. p 2l-1, ' ln

lhN,lctrf,lrr.. rnd rccipro.ity ol eork l|nd lhe srlisiitcrrln ol-necds.

THE OIALE'TIC OF REASON

123

IHT DIALFCIIC Of RtA'OI!

r!t.1r^!, r.rirr,r.J lums 1i'1'".onnhtn,t hBunls rh. sdnstadn,tol th. Deeds ol .t.^\,'t els. By ! dioledrcal movemen( rhc pani.ular is medrated by lhe univcrsnl so that cach individual. In elming.rrroducrnS. and entoyins on his own accounr yiir * rl. rhereby eam\.rnd prodmes lbr rhe enioym.nr ol orhcrs. )

In cxamining rhis sccrion. wc havc thcrcforc seen how Hegelpresents rhrec strndpotrrt\ lhat conrrndicr rhc (ircck !icw that .wisdonr

and v'nue consist in livinS in accoi(iancc with the cusloms of onc snrlion . ind Instcud try k, show how conscousncss can bc ar hom.'In r nDre lndividurlislic nunncr. hy seckins plcasure. or lirllowins' thc hw of th. hc n . or by c\crc i ing unrcl l v inue. where e ehrkndpornt ser* r lc ruApccrr \c ol th. indt ! idur l ut odds $i th thee\ i \ l rnB $eir l ordcr. in ! $. | }" rhrr u l r inrNrd! udermincs thcm. s $.hr\c seen l legel bel ic!cd rhrt $ l th lhc r i { ot modcm indr\rdu!t ;snr

' l *as ine! , rahlc thr t \ ic$\ d! rh is krnl l rvou cn)crgc rs conscrous

ncss lflt'd ro tind a sr) ti) rDil. sclr"rr honrc sh.n rhr euson\ rndlrrdr l rons thrt mrdc on ( i r . . l crh.r l L lc hnd l ( \ r rh. f .urhonr) . buri r i5 elear th l t lbr l l tgr lcon\ehrsn.{s nnr\r t ind:omc $r)- kr g, \c Ik,le r() a drlTercnr I'nd dl soerrl tinLsort. rt rh. bllxn(c l(]sr h! rhr\

I ltrnr to 'ndi{idurlrsnr

N ro hc rc\r,trcd.

Practical Reaion

I i rhe scet i l ,n Nc hr!e be(d e, ! r \ t r ldrnf . ror i \erousncss hNs dlsci^clqlthr t i rs Indr\rdur l in i . runr hr\ n() t cfrhtc( t r l ( ) l ind-wisdonr u.{ t\ rnue i on rhc (( !nrxr . th. pursurt o l t lcr l le has m.r. l I l .d rr)

! urhrf | i t r .ss. rhc In$ ol lhc hcrn l r rs h.(o[e { l ,crnrcci t . rn l \ in! .

' hr \ he.n r . \ . r l .d r \ hr ! l i Inrn( ic( l h\ | l \ r r , r In thc \ccr i (nr N. $rt l

i r r \ \ dr \ .us. e i r , r l ( l In(1, \kt ,h l \ \ \h, ! l i t rL. . 1rs. l l T,J Be Ire.r t r r\ , r l I ' r l l \e l l - . l l . ! r . \ rn,rr f \ , ! rh(r { r \ \ , r \hrch nrod.nr , r (1,-\ktur l , {n r t l f \ h.r( l r . r \ .k l Dr{ . r r r j l r re. ( ) t rhr \ krnd

fhe Spi.itual Animal Kingdom

In rhc n. \ r \uh. t . rknr tenrsmrtr(r lh .nrrr lcd thc Spf lMI {nrnt lK,ngdonr rnd I) . . r . ( t r rh! Nl . l rLr t i I tnr( t t t \c l f r cg. t .one(te^ir l i lpodrnr r \ I 'c . r ot rhr \ r r1!rrk l"r l r { r . run' . \ hreh rs rhrr rhc strht .cr

124

IHE O ALTCIIC Of RTAsON

lvllulrcs himsclfrn termsofhis works {i.c. hrs dccdslnd products),*hrh hc vrews as an expresion ofhimscll.comrng lo know shar her throuSh what l|E can dol-Cans(iousness musl llcl mcrely in ordertut what ii is iflterl Eay becorne expttcilrrt tr in othcr words, actroni.Imply the coming-lo-be ofSpint as.,rr.nrlrr.5r . Accord'ngly..n indi!idual cnnnot know whar he [rc.lly] is until hL hrs rnadc himsell. r . r l i ty through actron (PS: : :10) ln th is wny. i l might nppcar rhalih. Indivrduirl would allow himscll to bc lndscd on thc basis ol h'sr . l ro \ i bul rn lacl i l l lc ts ol scl l -expression arc !1e*cd as uniquc.md cqLol ly vr luablc: l l woukl only bc pur down xs x bdd wotk by| .onrtlrirrs ruficclion. lvhich. howcvcr. is ln iLIlc rllirir. since !l

t (Er bcyonJ lhc csscnlrul natu. i ' of th. "ork.

which i r lo bc r \e l l :

crprcs$on ol- rhc Indi!idu.lily. rnd ir rl l,x'ls li)r und dctnrnds( 'mcrht l ]8 el$. no one lno$s \hr l lPS l l l ) I hr \ Innn olcons. iousn r \ thus rdoprs r non rudscnrcntr l ar l r ludc (shr.h lor \ tcr l99l l l. l l l 5 chnns

's modcl l .d on l lcrder ' \ h,rrone,sn)) . x: r .csul t ofshrch

lc0n ht.s up rn rtt'ludc ol l(,yous \cll'rllirnrrltnr

Ih$cl i ' rL. l . . l ing\ of cuhxrror. o i l rn)cnrr lur . or .cpcntxneerh rh,rsclh.r out of thec Ior r l l rhnr \od ol thrnS \renr\ I iohl nrnt l qhich rm!8r es r , , ,x.r l r f r l ln r , r ! / / shreh rrc( l i l lcrcnt l ionr lhc.ngl t r r l nr turc ol rhc r t ( | \ ( i [ l rnd r l 'e netmlcxrryrngl^rr or ' i t indr. rcr l $on( l \ \h i r r . \ ! r r r r . rhnr rhc lndl\ i ( iur l doc:- !nr l $hr lc\cr h.r f Icn\ r ( , hr i r . rh i l l r . hr{ { loncl i r t r rscl l : rnd h. i \ lhxl h i f rscl l l l lc .xr t hr \ . ( r r l \ th. (onsci( t rN-

f fss ol lh. s inUlc l r rh lcrer.r , , / , , r . , / / l lorn lhc f rShr ol '

t , ( ) { \ ih i l i t ! inro thc d! ! l ighl o l lhe t r (sf I l lhc Lndrrr( lml.lhcr. l i ) rc. knorr tg rhdl rn l r r \ re l r i r l $,)rk l h( ! r f l i r id n( ' lhrrgcl \ . hul r r \ u,rr ! $ i th hrf \ . l l i in t r r l \ rhe ee, l r , r l \ (n hrnrscl fln rhe lnnh o1 lhrr $or ld. , i r r ,Vr1r,"r ' t , t l \ r \ t , htr t \ ru.

l l )S: l1: I

l , i rhc onc hrnd- rhr ' 'ndr\rdur l s \ehcD,e { ,1 \ !he\ ,s s, , r . r i l r \ rs l r . .. ' r l ( ! r rh. othrr hr \ s.n\ . or 'hrm\cl l rhrr hc l tc ls$!t norhrnt h. docs cln posihl! hc htld n!.'n{r hrtn. \o lhll hc clnrhrk oll rll lhc \troh!!l alen.r'on 11. hrt {} lur c\pcncnc.d. and!. . hun\( l l rs - !n ab$lure mrtr l i$knr ol rn( l ! ( lu! l r ly rnd hei .g '

rPS l l l r

125

r l l (F( lJrFuc' . h, '$u!r ' . rhrr thrrF\ J ' r 1 ' , r r \ :JI i ' l rctor) J ' thr)

I anNJr I hc di f l i (u l r ) h thJr (onr( i ' ,usnc\ i hn,h thrr ' ' \

w'r l \ r r . r ,

I un\rahl( hrm,,1 \L l f - ( \ l l res{on hecau\( rh(} f \ r \N $hi lL ' r r (hrng(\ .

, whi l \ l lh( { ln i lnanLe ol rhe wort h op(n x\ rhc,nl(nrelar ion, t

' othcrs. so lhrl rl\ work now secms k) sr.Dd xgrrnsl 'r:

l('lonsc'ouincss ts lhus m.dc.sarc in ils work ol th. dnrrr.rii ofu,illing an.lnchievrnS. bclsccn cnd and mcnn!. rtrd. rgirn. bctwe.n this innrrnaiurc in r l \ cnlrrcr) and real i ry l rsel l : ro lotr th.s is $hich in gcncnlin. lud(s s i thrn r t r l ie cont i .geney ol i l \ rer t r )n ( l ,s: 215). Iaced Frththrs !ntr lh.srs. cons.rousness no$ rncs k) g l r i rntcc thar i t $1l l be sel llhoughl ol by olhcrs bv nr.kirg $trc it crn hc rssocirrcd with whrr-c\cr rs lhc curcnl-hi8lhing or 'n t lcr in h|n(I . .s lhcn i t knows i l$r l l he th( t r rghl o l is honen . Thi \ 'honc\ty rs. hosclcr . ! grcnlhtrnrbtrg. ! \ l lc indr l Lr l Ni l l r r ! t ( , s i r \ hc r \ t rn ol rh is $onh$hr lcpn,t l r r c\cLI hc hu\ done n.rh ' .9. br rs\enurs l l i r r r lcast hc hrsstnnuhl.rl odrL'rs. or \\.s nor

'n . posrkrj k, do t'n\rh'ng (e!(n rhouel,

h. \xnr(d k)) . or hv c l . imrng cr.drt lar thnr! \ h. hxs nor done Thi{hurrhug qtrrel l ! h.eom.\ rpprrcnt t ( ! othcr{ . $ lo s. . th. t th. 'urdl\ i r l !$ l l r r \ a\{ELatcd hrm\cl l \ r rh th.rr t r ) t .er nrcr ! [ ro l { \ )k good

'n thcrr e!c\ : l l l Ind, \ rdunl \ thu\ conr! r . \ .ctr r h l l loentrc l l tu one

rndlh.r . rs rr r l r . r x l l i i ( l r l i N \c l l -punot ion l r r \ .lhcn. equr l l t r ( l . .c t l ion ol onrsr l l rnr l i , l o lhcrs rr ' i l rs t rcrcrd.( lrhrl trhrl onc rs (on..rncd \!ith is th. ',r,///,? ul ltuhJ uh,n 4corsci( \ rsnc\s lhr l opcns ul i r $rbte( l f t l lcr so(nr l . r rns thr l o lhcrshunr rL(rrg l | lc l lc \ 10 l ic \h l ! nourc( i rnrr t r r lk . ln l wNnt k) bus\rhfrN. l \ . \ $,rh rr . r fd rhe\ l . rnr rh,r , r rhr l D(f i \k lur l lhr l hc. kr) . r !. ( r . rD.r l s,rh rhe \uhrt f r iD.r l t r . ror r \ !n r , / r ( ! , . hur r \ h, \ rn,i l l r r ' t l ' \ l . l ) . l , i \ou\ ' . l l x l l ionrr j (nr th! \ h. ! . i1. \ l r rnnidrc( li ,nr ! t ) (" \ ! r { r \ . \nr f r jn

( i in\ j ( iL, \n. \ r lh(n (on!\ rL ' , r r . . t , r 'h,n

1,rh.A $ r l l l r rnr . r t 'Jr .In r l i . r .L l l r r r f h,ql . rn rhxr rr f ,urr()r ( \ f . ( r n, [c( f rhr \ k] iN{ l r 'ln \ ' ( lo, , ,q , r r l ' r r rhc n, . , r r ( , In h.rnd r \ ( ,nr( lhrn!unr\d\r l l l l ' . n ' r re ' In hrnt l s l . , " ! r . l , \ !L.h rhr r \ / r . t , { ' r \ thc,{ / r , , r t ) l lh. \ r ' ( l . rndrrrdml .nd or r l l inr t r ! i ( lur ls $hosc acrn , \r r r r r r l (drr lc l \ / l , ' , r r f , \ , or is r "mrl lcr In hrn{ l nr l N such onl} rsrhc rc lnn ol rd( / r xnd.r . , rvrk, : lhc csscf .c *hi .h is thc cssenc. olr l l bernr\ . ! r / r , tn lu l . t r rkr l l l r r \ rh. uni \crs. l $hich h. \

126

THE DIALECIIC OT REA5ON

b6rr! only rs lhis aclion (n all and c!ch. rnd a r.d/n]. in lhe llcl thal

,tn /urt{urlr consciousness knows il l(, hc ris own indivrdual realily

.||d lhc rcrlxy of al! (PS:15l l) As conscrcusness comcs lo recog'

||rc rhlt lL\ Prcjccts lbm prn ol tr wrder cnlerprise. tl no lonSer

rrccumbs to lhc sell-rcsrrdrnS lcaknrsrcs of the Spirilual Antmal

I,rntdotn. and instead comes lt) *"c rrr rls acrrons a moml PUrPose.n|hcr lhxn tht merc cxpressrnr ol sclt that comcs lion.rcnlr\e

Thus whrt is obj .e l i i ) r eons( iousnc\\ h.s lhc s ignih.rnec ol

hcing lhc Truci n ir un(l il is drlldfrl,ir'lr', in lhe scnsc lhrt rt

e\ is ls rnd rs rulhor i l . r l r ! . in rrrd l i r r i tsc l l I l is lhc dhv)/r / r ''n[r lcr $ h.nd . wheh r{) knlger sul lds l iont lhc 0nlr th.srs ol(cnrrnl ! lnd i r \ r ru lh. hcl$ccn rrnr\(rs! l rnd r tdn idui l . hcl"cen

nuqarsc lnd i r \ r lo l i l t . hur $hos. c\r \ lcn. . is rhc r1l / t , r rn( l

d,1,4 oi- sel t - .onselrrrcs I hrs n r lct in hlnd ^

th.rel"n

lhr fttu,r/ ,r/,\,,4 r': .,nil (.tr\(xr^rcss oI n a lhc .//,, !1

l l 'S: l5 l 1)

Aeaton and motalitY

In thrs $uy, l lcgcl nukcs lh. r r r rsr l ron l i (nn r . t ion \ l ) l jn i ts \ . l r_,.rpr!sur. ti) nrxal.!xi{{r. rr !rli!!u lo lLrllil ctlncll !!Dosc\. ,\l

t l t r l , f ( \ ( ( t rsrress sccs ro Ft . r l ( l r l l i (u l l ! in s. l l r fg (nr l l iJ . .1 nr!r l l ! .

lor n t r lcs rhc cssunrtr , ,nr rhr l cr(1, , , r1, \ r t lurL cm \ .c l i ' r hrn ' \ . l l

*hrr r \ , rghr. rnd bch.\c, tccoft t |n! \ ' l l l l . \ l re\ \c\ rh. e\r \ rcr . t ( ' r

th( l . r$ \ r lhrn r lscl l r ' lo l l fs ' \ \ r rk j R.rnn' Ino\s rnnnfdrr lc )Nhit r . f l lh l . !nd good Jrr l ,^ r l l i , { \ \ lhc ld$ Inrnr.r l r r l ! l \ ' \o r ! l

| . ln$ $ \ r ln l lor r r rmnr(d,rrc l \ . r \ r t \ r ) ' d,r tcr l l : - thh r \ r rghr Jrd

t,ril rnd. o(trco\cr. lhr\ nrrrrful.tr lx$ Ih. h\ \ .rt ,/r,1,?xtr,rrc.

lh( l rN r \ lhe mrt tcr rn hx.r l r l \ . l l l i l l ! ( l s t lh srgnlh(rnr ermt.nl

t l \ ,15\r l legcl thcn $rgg.\ ts lh, l r eons(!)u{nc\ \ hr{ lh! \ inr l r r l tnc(

|R!nF. rl thnks it c:rn d.c c llos lo ict In I nrl1rculxr \rlurlron ny

orqt l t edn$hrng cenxrn scl l_ct rdcrr r t ( l unrrcrs. l lv \ r lx l nr f l l nr lcs

l |hrh {r l l lc l l r t imn.dir l r l t how l ( ) bchtr lc. ru lcs hkf l ivervont

NIhl n, t t l l lhc rrulh. or ' lo\ . th l ncrghh( r !s th l { ' l l ' . sh. tc r l

127

THE OIALECT '

OF REASON THE D ALECTIC OT REAsON

appears lh.l lhcse imperrtr\cs in themselves providc guid.nce litraclion. Hegcllrgucs rhar thrs rs nol thc casc. however, bcclusc whetherI should act in ! ccnain way in I cedain situation is not somclhinS Ican dcrennine lmmedirlcly by consultlng rulcs ofthis sod: tbr in flctlhcy .cquire tirriher qullilicdtion ifthey are to provide us wilh propclgurdance. and this qunl i l lcr t ion mdkes detemi in ing thc. ight act ionharder thrn Rcason lirn thought, so thar in panrcular cascs rhese rutesma) nol help us Nr !ll. Fnr e\ample. s ilh regard to the rulc Lv.ryoneoughr l l ) rc l l (hc l rurh . I l .8el argucs thal rh is cannor mern .Lvcrvon.

ought lo sNy shalevcr thcy bcl icve . becnusc pcopl . nr3y bel ie!r lh inSslhal rrc fNls.t hul il we modify thc rule lo lr\eryon. oughr kJ lcll thclrLr lh r l -whxl thc! sar is l ruc . thcn as my bcl ie l l \ r rc c lcxr l \ t i lhble.I . rnn.r bc \urc i r r panicul r sr lur l i ( )n wh.th$ I sh(uld sr l rnythirgor nol And. srlh rcgNrd 1o thc rulc Lolc thr. trerghbour ds th)rs.tl'.l lcg. l &gucs lhar Ih is or ly l . ds lo r Sood ! . t i {m i l l k , !c nry ncigh,bour ' inr . l l igenr ly. rhr l is . do r l r ings lor h in th! t ure In his rcr lInlcrests. nol.jtrsl in hi5 rnlercns {s t happcn k, scc lh.m. bec usc rhcnnr! rc l ( 'n rs not nuch,rore lhNn r scl l - i rdulCcncc on nry pu. l . I lu lthen. ns bclore, thc fmbleD rs lhr l in d plnic!hr dse nry n. ighboursrcrl inlfrc\ls wrll in lirct bc hatul l() dct.nnin., $ thrl rhc rulc {hefpropcf ly dc!r lopel do.s nor re. l lv f ' ror idc n. $ i th much guidrn. . .and l ( \ )ks r ! th$ rrr f r ) . lhus, rs thesc eu\cs s l l ) { . thc i (1$ lhr t dcrcrnrnrng iow ro rct r ighr ly rust rcqurrs forhrn{ mtrc thrn gra\prn8 ai,i$ sell--e!idcnl Rtr.l rules has rum.d our (' bc troblcn tic

( i )nscrousncss cont in!es lo bcl ic! . t lut t l r r rndr! iduNl isrrc st i l iccol R$nn' ern hc mrdf ro $ork. ho\$cr. nor becrusc \ r r ious Nft lnr l .s nnl . th. n lh l re l ion . rs! t { ) ( lc lcnnrnc. hur bccrusc thc indr\k lur lo(s n( ' r hn\e r , , ,e lv on th.s. tu lc\ . hul(rD i rnc.( l l t f ' l ) | tn) .e,hrrr l - l ( i r ' r ( ' h1\ rer ( ! r \ t ( i nr . r l . srrc his iLe(!on\ r r . cthi . r l l r - l rnr t icd:rhrr resr r \ rh. Knnrrrr rcsr or 'uni \cr{x l i / rhLlLr! . {hcrc thc subi ! 'c l rskshrn)str l l i l rhc nu\rnr ol h is rer( [ crn bc.on.. i \ed ot or wi l l .d rs r u, I -rcrsr l lx$ (n, $hr.h. \cr \ t e relc( l (c l l Krnt ( iMM..1: l r .1 l l ) . In rhcsubs.clkrr tnr ' l {cr{)n .s l .nrnlr I r$\ ' . l lc !c l . r i t rc i l l l } drscusscs rhrr l lcm bv l {crsof ( ) tk, \ idc th. lndr! idur l { r th r sry ol delcnninirrSrhc eonrcnr ol nrnIr ! . rnd nr oi l i rs r er i l ique ofrhis pan ol Krnr ixnclhic\ . lkNc!.r , * l i r l . l legcl s wcl l kno$r r l lack on rh. . lbnnrt ism'Nnd .ninl ine\s. of thc Krnrtn posi l i (nr h.s.( !nrccd rrn. Lt hrs tc l i

ollx.rs eold: nxtrcover. lhc exact nalurc oflhc tllack is nol ersy to pin

.b$n, Fniculndy whcn the discussion in the Pr.t,r'?trdft)af 's

sel

.lon8sitlc other lreahents oflhc issuc in the Nalunl Li$ cssay and

t ic I 'h i | ' torht t ) lRiqhttsac NL:79 u5andPR: Nl15.pp. 162 l ) .'Ihe most slmighlforwn aay ol lakinS t{cgel s criilque is lo

.c him s c la iming thal lhe unl lesal izabi l i ty tesl i tsel f is enrPty. in

tl|G icnsc lh.t elcry mxxrnr can pass lhc tcsl. Thus. lbr e\anrPlc. while

Xrnl rrgucd thrl mrking lying frcmiscs or obraining properly by

rcnlirS lionr othra crnn{)l b. univcrsuli/ed (becaus. lhc Praclice ol'

Frrrsc-kecprng rclrs on Frlicipanls leeping thci. woi(i. and thc

Inrfir l(,n ol propcrty dc|cnds on panictprnts tcspecling lhe ruk's of

owncrshrp). on lh is ! ic$ I legel is arSuing lhr l lhe maxrnr of lhcsc

anons,?, hc univcrsr l i / td t ! r lhoul d i f i icul ty. Ikrweler, I lcgcl never

.(tl|llllt {tiscu\srs lhc r\sue in lhis $ry: lhtrl rs, hc n.vcr argue\ rhar

l lor crnnt lc) t ( )nr is ing could conl inuc lo l i ,ncrron in r \ i runt ,on {hcre

.vcryoN lrcd. or tlut fnf.ny couklcont,nue to c\ist in I sl,rld whcrc

tvcryorrc \lolc lionr cv.rlonc cl$. so lhrl il sccms lhal lhis wNv ol'

Lhn8 l lcgcl s.r i t iquc i \ loo s i . rp l 'srr . .Noncr l r . lcrs. c!cn r l f legcl is in lcq,reled r \ t ' l l (^rrng thr l Rrnc

nurnDs ernnol hc uf i !crsr l izcd. rnd lhu\ rs rc.cPl in! lhr l i r ' th is

r .q. thc lcsl i \ nol cnpry, hc crn r l \o b! ' inr .qrr . tcd rs sx)_,rg thr l

lhr . rn r l \e l l i \ insul l i . i .n l in hclnnrg !s ( lctcmine ho$ $t shoul{ t

h.htr ! ( t i , r { r dA, nccd lo be r() ld $h! r l \oul( l hc N'( g l (J xcl In. | r ( l x t r r \ rs t (J undcnni le lhc i fstr lutron rD Llue\ l i (nt In thrs n fner.

.nd r , ' r ,n/ / lcn (o1-conr ' id l . r rnrr . rn le l l u\ / tur l Ihus (k, u\c I

Xdnlr i r e\rnrt lc: e i l Kxnr ( I r fR. 5: t . l l ) . $hr l . I l .g. l doe\ r( ' l

{ rnr i r td shcrhcr, t r nol lh. lccprng ,) l ( i tn, , i rs \oul l und.n" i f r rhc

r | l r | | iutrr t ) l p( ,1)cr1\ . hc r loei co,N(t t r \ !h. th.r Krnl cr f 8 i ! . rn)

nr.rr , r , ' \h( i$ rhrr r $or ld {rrhour fnJNnv sotrL( l l i r l rn l nf l o l

k n, . ' l r . \ r - $hich Nrhrts sLrggcsrs lhNr hc rhoughr th is l lnhcr rssue

ft t , , , r ( l \ t rnc sor l o l r rs$.J (( l l Sol(Dorr ! ( )81: 5 l l . I i \ l l ] r l 'ar

l rnr ' \ , f l lcrknr \ho$\. r t nr)st . is lhr l r ccnIrn inni tut i ,n l . $hrch.

, t r ( r t r r r \ rnr t .cslr 'noscs, (ould nol b. nrsrNincd. Srrcn I c.nrm

Fkr ih/c( l p.nrerpl . I lut $trc ly lhe qocsr ion ol s le! l i r tg depends onqx.\nlurt r ot lhc Insl i lu l ro ol pf l l r tc Pft) fcr ly. )

t i , \ 1n( lcc( l lhc er\e rhrt f lcgcl-s diseu\! , r o l p( ,Pcny nrtlx I'hn rrtnt)t:t rfrl el\cNh.rc sccnrs lacu\td prn[rrlY on the

128

(

IHT DIALECIIC OF REAJON

dilllcully ol using x lolm,rl ten of non-conr rrd rcr l()n ro rell us whcthclthe ir\tilutit)r o! pnrpeny is 10 be preltncd k) th r ol non-propcny.rathe.lhan dn whcther a tunt' Iikc depost-kccpinS can be unrleFsalrzcd. llcgcl cltums thnt iflhe tesi oi non-conr rrd ict rcn se aplly i\to sec whcthcr rhcrc rs somc son ofdr.lcclrcal lrnsion In the ponl|on.lhen bolh prcpcnr ard non-propcnv rru .onrradrck,ry: for. a sysrenlot cdmnrn oun.r{lnn Invol\es a s}srcu ol iltrrnbolion rccordinS t()need {rn Nhrch c!s. {onr. ger morc thrn orhcrs) .rnd disrriburron.c.ord'ng kJ.qur l r r ) ( in $hrch .asc nl l 8cr lhc sxnrct , $h1lc u sysrcnrof t r ivdtc pR'peny rnlohcs ! tcnslon bd\! .en r thrng hclon! iDg lo aindi ! idul l { i r whi(h cn\c i t docsn t nr | t tcr hos rh.rr poss.ssron oi r ra l l ;ct \ othcrs) rn( l Ihr l in l i i ! idur l lcc l ing thcy l rc jusl onc rmongnrnaDf In( l r ! rdur ls (n *hrch case i t docs) (h lhe dlher hand. l leg. lsals. rhcrc x nothrns /rrr.t/r ,/4. conr ra{hekrrv rr Lllhcr srsrcm: so lhiskrnd 01 r . \ t ing , \ r t rcon. lusi \ . $h.n a\ l rd l , ) ( lch\Lr i !cd,cr o erth(r

( inr{ .qu. , r r l \ . I 'k) I ' rn\ r \ iu\ t r \ . 'uel , . ' l l roond eonrr ldre-ro ' r r \ k - ! rot4-r l \ : .x.h contrG \ r thrn r l rhcs. l$o onn.\cd.: ( l r cortrrdL.ktr \ nknn.nt5 ol iRf i \ LJrr l , r \ xnd unl \ . rsr l iN &ncNh ol thLse ( l . rcnnrnr lencsscs $hrr rhoLrght ol rs \ t f l . . rspf t )nc y ( t r nonlhpcn\. sr thoul ( r t l i ( rng thenr l i r r lhcr. is xsv, , / ) / r ' rs lhc ot l ' . r . I c js nor sel l -contrr( I . t ( t rv I hc cnlcr ion oth$ $hLe h R(nnr l )os$s.s $rrh r) l$ l l l i t \ . \e rv crsc cqur l l !$cl l . rnd i \ lhu: In l i ( t no.r i tcrn rr r l l

(PSr l5() )

\ . \ . r l rh.u!h l lc lc lm\ I \ nLIr r l r r r I r . \ r , ' l , r ( { - !onrr ldrcrron,\ In! .n( l ! \ , \ . \h.r r r (onr.s rr r \ f0r ( l fnr rh l r rh(n\ {eh l ! !n j t f \ l r rL nj , r \ r r r \ o l retron{ kr l .n r ! r r \ t r lut(nr\ r \ on. thcK.nr,nn i ! ( ,1 r . . l ohrg(d k, nr ikc (onrnr.nrrr , t r \ on l lc lct hr \ .:o! ! . \ tc( l rhrr r l j \ \$ .h r1 r .qurrud. be(ru\c ( ' rhLi$r\c rr rs nor ( l . r r\ rh\ th. .dn'nr | | ! r rnr t .st . r f t lcd ro nu\rrr \ r . \c,r s,d\ lhrng ol c lh lcr l i ! r ' r l i . r , , f r l , ! . c \ f r r l m.kins l \ i rg I r t r l rscs on( i .n i r i ie\ rhe,r \ r r ru l l ! r t ' l t ] r ( i ' iL\(- lcct ing ( l i ) r c\Nnrnlc) . urLcss fnnDising r \\ho$l n) h( r nr t r . l l ! {Nnd nrslrrutron. lhrn thrs sould not sho$It_rn! r ' ) h+ srr ! ( ( I \ \a l \h l96e: : t . \ \c r )n! rSrcc lhr l in t lcs.ctr .unLrr i (c\ r l ' . $h(,1. Insrnor 'on ol 8r \ rn! .nr l nc(etrrnS I ' f t rnrs. \

110

'HE OIALECT]C OI REA'ON

rnuld edllapse wilhout tossihility oI rc!r!al. Bul tr docs Dol ialkrw

dlr 0 *orld wirhoul p(,miscs would bc morally infcrior k,lhc $is(rngrltrld . tl.8cl is guire corrcct in argurng that il is ! presupposuon ol

l|nt s irgumcnt th it is ri8hl l,r kc.p promiscs: the !erv conelusionb..pp(xlkr rhe uni !crsr l ' / r lkr l .n is $rpposcd ( , jur i l .v ( l l u lsr K

I Wcrrphal 1995: ,lo. ll io sho$ that n maxim conlr0dicis dn nrslrtu-

tltn rr prcsupposes shous nolhnr8 ntxDl lhe moral sl.nding ol lhc

n rnluntr I$.knoe $nrclhIng-hy\ ln|cotherm.rns.rboul thct l l ( ) ru|a.ndrnS ol rh. Instrlut(rt ) ll,Nc\cr. rhc K.nnan mlr rc\Pnd k' thr\

rtum{nt. b} elaiming rh.ll rt rnrlcrc\tinrlcs and rrsr(tcntrlic\ th.

f t | . r l l i ' rec ol- lhe un1\cr$L/xhr l r t t tcsl rs rppl icd t i ) nrr t rn ls r i ) r thrs

l . t iho*\ lh l l r l th. rgcnt rc l \ xs hc rs plannrng lo do (hv n([rn8 |

tllr. prdnrs. or whrlc\cri he *ould hc lice-rid1n8. by !(lrn8 In r wlyl}|.t (l|n onlv $rc.ccd tl olhcrs (l{, rrol dd lh. srnrc. nd rl r\ /rrr thll.ht*\ hr{ rcrior k, bc *nnrg. rn r $r} lhrl is indern(tcrrr ol o r

. ihr . ! l c ! rh l r l ron ol rhc , r r r r t ( r ! on shrch hr\ ncrtr t ' rc l te! .

l( l XoASrard l9t)6: el. \II.rl lhc rcrl sho$\ kJ bc lnrhddctr.rc

lu.t rho\. r.roni $ho\r crli.rc\ rn xehrc\ ng drdr ttrrrx.\ (lLrnds

qrn th. t r b.rng.\ .ct t ! t rHl ( t r l { , Krnt ( 'Nl \1 J I r l { l ( ) r . on

&'thct InrLrlircl{tur. thr l!\l \ho$\ lhrl nr} x.tkrr ern (trrl! !l.(ct(lr l | t rs. lhc luct lhar olh!r \ f r f l r f r | [ t . rn thc Insl rut ! r r Lr I t t ler k '

. i | t tn, l rh(rrbchr{n r ( l ( t rx( l . i r x.(ounl o l lhe ( i , r ' lL ' \nfc ht tsc(nlh(r{ r . ! (hngs- lnr l lhcir rcst)e( l [ ( nr . r l \ .scel lcnr i in l { ) ' ) ] : l r l 1 l )I r rh.r \xr . holh (Ndinls sh, i \ sh! r r r l ,ng rht ufL\ f rs l l i / rbr I l \ lcs lm r t \ . l r hr \ Dur l igrLl i , r ix ( . ! ' | , \ nor r [ r r $h! rhf nrrr ] \hn( l r tgol lh( In\rrr l ron rel . \ i r r r , , r l , . r ix \ , ,n l t , 'o l [n\ . f r ,nnr\c- l . r f ,nS. orrhrt . \ r r roc.d\ ro he h,rn,rhr , f r ( ) { r l t r I rs. I l r I t . rh r l . r r lor f rhr llh. \ ' , 'ht . . rk{N l . I l r ! l ( t r t r r . r l nr i , ,1 R(r ton.\ le\ l rn! l . ( \ \ 'd( t ro l

\ ( r 'c th.h\ \ . l l ( ! ( l \ (1, \ (u\ \ rnr ( l ( r \ r r r \c , r r r t r r ln)r lxnr

{( . \ r r rnnxr l o!cr $h,rr ! \ r ( r1t rhe Krnrrrn mtrr l rs l ( in . \nc. tf t r i (htr \ . lor . of lhr one hrr i (1. r l l l r . lL 's l o l nor-c. i l fu( t re lk r \

Ftr . l \ l , {nrr l . i r r \ n(n r l . I r l i r l l i r lLng thc lcsl rerer ls rnr lh l rS t ) lmtr i l rc le!nnee: $h!, r r r r i r r \ rnr h i ls lhc rcn. do.\ lhL\ shotr thr l

.nnI . r l I ! nx\ inr No![ l h. sronS' ' l l : ( r t l i t othcr hrr( | . l lc lc \ r| . \ . .n x\ n \ r \ r r shr(h rh. , r ! (n l ! r , r ( l i \ .o\ . r $hclhcr or ror h!

. r r r ! | r . r rLa. !n nnnner lh. \ $(rr l , l h. 1 ' . . nd n! . l I . r r l r \ tLr l e lur

t l1

rHT DIAICf TIC OT REASON

that thc rest compare\ i coorcnt \ i th nsett_ (J,s: :57). $ r t therpfcsupposes somc mordl conrcnr as part ofrhe tc\t (nlnrcty.lhc w.on8ncss ot liee{rding. or dl m.rnipulatrng olhc.s). ralhrr rhan dctcnnrnin!whut is riShr and wronS thR)u8h the test. nnd so rs no knrSer purrtyti)nnrl in this sense.

Ihc wdy HeBel concludcs this scction. and nukcs rhc lransit,onItonr Kantian mor!l,it r() (ncck cthrcrl lli. suggcns rhnr hc $!s ihcXrnrun rs lacing a dr lc tntr : drhcr thc KrnhJn l rcr ts thc unr!crs! l

'/abllrtv reJr a\ purel) rann{l tbur rhcn shv should prssrn! rhrr lc\r

nrau.r trom a Dxnl pcrspcerrr.t). or he aeccprs rhar lhc rcsr has \om!nml contcnr (1n $hreh . l \c he his not shoRn rhl t rcn\on ern drsrrn-gursh bcl$ccn right and *fttrr8 !ctions on ! pul.t) li)nnrt f,!sis). Th.KrntrNn cirn thus c i thcr rhrc$cr thc rarhor i ty dt nmti ty i lsct f b\lryrns l() deiermrnc wl r r\ mml b)r uyns d turety Jnrnrrt (nr()rdl]-ur t l ! ) rcsl . or he eu rcfcpr rhrr rhc resl is not turct ! t i )nni t bul r lsct tprfl ol Drralir\. ,n *hrel .n\c sc hr\e nor In li'.r For b.vond ! liindol nr'ral lbundrr'onalriD. $heh jun rak.\ .crtrrn nntrrt pnnc|ptclleonccm,ng thc $roogne\s ol l r .c-nding. t i r e\and.r n\ Bi !cn

Iiom lhrr. lldSrl rlercti).. nrukcs ! rrxnlulr tionr rhc Krnrianslandpoint . back k ' th. crhrcxl lLt iot rhc ( ;c. t \ : t i ) r . lcco ing r( llfugrl. lh.y sere sinrtl) preprrcd b rccepl rhc li)Lrnihr!Drt n.rlue olDxnl pr inciplcs in prccjscl) , lhrs mnner. $ i tho!r rny x l rdnpl lo'Sr ' !n( l or 'dcrnc rhcm in s(rn! c\1tu nDral r r , \ r . ( As f !cr . o l .ouAc.lhr l i .ntr ln cu rcp[- rh! t th is $rs nc\cr rh.1r In lcntror , r ) tn, t rN,ntrhe lof lnuld or ' lhe t lDr\cNl t r$_ but lhcn rh. l lc t . t r r r reslrnr\rnrghr h. . rh.r ,n th.rr . r \ . rh. Xrnr, in erDDdr r tonr ro hlre rdd.dortrrh ro rh( $r\ In shrrh \c oRlnrnl \ det .nDrn. rh. nrhr ic* orsr lnrr . \ \ or our rcrr . f \ . h\ r \ .cssrn! th.njn! ' r , r l t ' ,nrr f ics ) l lc !c l rhd. t i t re (nl \ rh. \cetrnr b) rcrunr lnA r0 rhc\ t . r r r l l l , n l ,n rh. ( i r ( l \ . s l i , , $.ukl h. \ f \ .$ rhrr $hotc idcr or 'tc\r , Ig r . t rdrs usrng ecrrrrn l i !1 j r r t (noD nr) |nt l (ntcnr. rs rrI i r r l icrnr h ror l r r \ t t ( , rhc tJ,)sr t ion ,n Rea!nr r \ rc\ t r f ! t r$\ . . cgcl( l i , , r . , . rer /e\ t lN ( i rccl | (hrrron rs rnl lo\ \ :

lht t r ldn,^ht t , (n \e l l ron\e, .u$c$ lo rhcnr l rhc t rs\ l , \.q!r1l \ \ rnplcr t r r l . l . ! , lh. ! d, , _ r tutnothros nxrr i th\ r \ \h l r.onnrn . ! rhL. t r r , t r .n. \ \ t l t r rs l \ . l l -e(r \ekunc\\ ' | ! r t . r r ror \hr l

h, rltnr Thus. Sothoelrs .lallgdx. rckno(lc(lee\ thcm !\ theur$ nl lcn rnd in l i l l l rb lc las of rhc god\.

Thcy rrc not ol ycst. r! or loday. hul clcrhning.ThouSh whcrc th.] camc liom. nonc ol us cun lcll

' lhcy d,a t f 1 inquirc r l icr lhcir onSin rnd conl i l rc lhc k, the

Frrnt whr'Nc thcy .r(\c, lhcn I hr!c lrnnsccn(lc(l lhcm: li,r nosrt h I sho rnr rhc unr\cFr l . nnd / l { r r r . ' lhc coDdrtroned rndlnnlrd Ifthct arc rufifn\cd r,) bc \.!'drr.d h) /', Inslhr. lh.nI hn\c ! l r .u1l \ dcnicd thrr unshak.rblc. In lntr \ rc hcrnF. mdrcSrf( l rhcnr rs v 'nt lhrn! t rhr(h. hr nrc.

'J I ' . rhr t \ r ruc. rnd r lso

rs pcrhrps not l ru. l l l i rcxl drs l losr l ion conln\ tusr In nrel ingsl l r ( l l i rst ly k) shr l r \ rghl . rnd rh(rrnlng r i ( rn i r l l i r ( lc t r t rs 1onr^. or \h.ke r1. . , d( f \e , r Sipto\ . { rn. lh 'ng I ' r* b.cn.nrrusrcd r() nrc. , r , \ rhe nrot tn\ oJ nrn.onc. l \e rrr l I r .hno$l .dgc r I i ' / , , r dzn. , r , '

" , . . , t r ( i 1 lccI nr) sLl l unl i l rcf l rg ly nr lh is

r.lnlursh'p lr r. nr,l. lh.r.li)rc. bccru'e I l;rl \nclhrn8 6nor \c l l - .onrrrdr(r(r) lhr t r l r \ nghr. on thc ! . i t r ! , \ .

' r , \ nght

h.(xrs. r t r \ Nhrt r \ f l l . lht lhrr nnn.thrnq r \ r l r . |n, | r .n) o l 'rnorhcr. thr \ r \ l i ,n(h enr l . I hr \c nor r . r rg! . rhr( l . or hunlnn\rn( i l i r r or cnr! f l r l t r lhonthl : . .onn.f l rnr \ . iLr f . f l \ . o l l . r (usl | ' ( l \ i I hr ' ! . to thrr l n.r lh(r or n | |ng rs\ n, ! , ' l lc \ l r rg rhenr

t l ,s 16l : )

l l ( rc l rhu' r ' . ' rh. l i , l r , . , ,1 rh. Ku'rrr i \ r in, l l ,orrr ( r \ hcr. ' .x( , \c\ , r r ro r . ,1. . ( rNrrLn, j r . ' \ f ' r . l l . , rh( ( rh, . i r l l , lc . i rhct | rc( \ ' . $h.r . . , ! \ i r ( {6fr . . L l t r l f , \ ' f . r r 'c l r qur In(1, \ knr, , l .F hr\ Ingdt , r t , . , ( , r \ r , ,

' r . t h.r( l l i t r , rh( nr t rxL s( t r I ( l . t r t l ! , r ,Lnl r r In nn.

r . r ' , r lhcr.

r r \ r \ \ r t r rp l ) ,hnrcAc( l in thxr \ ( r [1. lL\ ]n! r f f . l1. t l i \ .1!rr lho r l \ l . rehrn! \ rn( l t , (u( t1\ \ r rh i . |orr l . lh(r( l i tc . .ons. i ( r r$r$ l rn, l \ r r \ . l l rcxd! r , i t ) ,n r1\ nr . rc l r i rdr \ r ( lur l r ' | rccl hchirnl

' l 't l \ . r r ' l r . , , , t r i r i nh\c l r r l t . r inr lo Sf i f l l l le, ! ern, \c iorNrcss 1s

FrI , r f , l ro r . . ( ) !nL/c lh.r l | ( rhJf \ n lncrhrne InDdrtr t .nrr l sn\ l , ,s l x\r . l l n\ I .nner l 1n lh. r r rD\Ll ! r r l i ( rn rhr (r , r l ( r , l or rh. rner.rr ro lhc|rdl ' i ' l ,n thc rul(rn $, , r1( l . .u rhxr rh ' \ lh ' r .sul l ( ! r f lhc onc-.* th( \

" l RL.NI{r ( (nr ' , rn^n. ' . l l r . r .k)r . l ( r rns l rnn r ! r r \ ( rc i !

t r " ' ( ,1 | \ . ,nt , !n rxn. , l r \ r , , . , . rn\rnr l r r t rnr o l ( ; rccl , . thr f r l l r le

112

la. t

llro dleloctlcof Splrlt

lPll€.nomcrtp,logt,C. (88.) SplrtQ

Et|tkd ui.

of ho* thc prc-dod.m i ividual f.h 'st|la wqld' .t dr !||rt of thc Activc R..!on'

2l l-17). Th.rc. lhir 'witldnv.l' had notligrificrnl, as Rcaron w.s confi-

h oould 6nd it!.lf'at homc' in r distinctivclyr|y, onc thrt leff th€ Gr.ck world cntir.lyll ws lhcn not inclincd to larncni th€ pslsing

or cooccmid to undcrrlrnd why it 'rrltr'!,ocr il. Ho*cvcr, Rcalon h.! found thrt its

of !6kin8 io bc 'sl hornc in th€ world'tila4 !o it now tumr io .nquirc i'|to thc

lb 'r1ljr': lo !.c why th. 'happy stat.' oflif. callrpscd lrd why it w's comFllcd

Ir rry of bciag '.r ho|nc iD tlrc world'.

rilhtrlv fiorn thir h.Fy st tc' (PS:hd dcchrd whcn pr.rcnting u! with

odrciorrlB itr thb 'hryy $1c' '.glirtf, b..rlr!c in thi! gltc 6c aubjcct

ar0t1T

*

ffimry

W,fifiorn th. worldi |' hc puts it tlo\r,

135

THE D AIECTIC OF 5P RIT

'Rcrsnr is Sprnr when irs cerurntr ol-bciD!.rll reuliiy has bi:cn ruisr,llo lruth. rnd il is conscrous o1-rtsell !s rt\ own sorld. and offie *ul,ls nscll- (ls: :611. The queiion lo bc considc.ed hv consctousne$

thcreforc- rs {hy (ncck cthical lilc $as nol shblc. dcspitc rhe facl dr.ihcrc cons.r()usncss fclt itsclf'at homc in u qav rhrt consriruicd . r.'rl

'z l lon ol ($hat l lcgcl cal ls) Spir i t l

Sf"rit rs thc uhdl ,1, of r nrtknr in \o tir rs it is the ,r,rl r tk t lu l t thc indivrdur l rhrr is . r sor ld. l t musr rd\anc. r , ,thc (ons.rdo$, js\ o l *hat r l is inrn.dr l rc ly. musl lc ! !e bchrr ,r l lhe b.xur, i o l e lh iq l l lc . rnd hy prssng through i scr ics ( ,s l r rpcs r l txrn k) ! tno$le(18. ol i lsc l l l lhcsc shrpcs. ho$et(rlrc (l|srrnSuishcd lionr drc prc\rous orcr b) thc l:.1 rhat rhf\r rc rcr l sprr i rs. lcru. l i l i .s i r rh. nncl nrcanrng ol rhc $ord. Nnl ln ' ! lcrd ol he,ng sh!I lcs nrc.c l r - o l (on\cr{srcss. r rc \h!pc\ , i j

(PS: l6a

thc l$ l o l lhh \ ( ( t rot i on Ihc l . rhr . r l ( ) 'd.r ' . rhcrcl i {c. rs k) . \ t l ( r .shal nul .s r l n. .eslrv l i ' r con:erousne\\ n ' ln ' l l i ) r a ncN $! \ orb.rng r t htrnc In rhc *odd . or ( r . pul Ln rhc r .nnrnolog) u$d hcr( I1, , s le sh! sprr i r $Ns nor iu l lv .cr l r /c( l rn rhL hcrury,) l ethrcr l L l . .hJ_ un(lcnlrndinS shy thb bc{ur! ntrrsr bc lctt bLhind . wc nr.v rh.,rhe rhlc ro \e! t rhr l lann the l indl rc. l1 l r t ro i ) ( ) l s t [ i l is rcquir .d r , '

l l . ! .1 t ! . 'crr . hr \ to\r1r\ . dr \ fu\ \ , .n ' ,1

( ' r (e l erhr.r l I re,n r l t r\ ' l \ f . r , , r , . r r , r le( l l hc I thr . r l \ \ , r ld l lu l rnn rnd l ) r \ rnc I a$: \ l r ,,nr l \ \1!n,o . $ hr!h h. I ! , r t r r \ \ l i r ( .1 \ { rcr ! n\ i conrt tc\ br t rn( !. l , r ( | \ r ( lu.r l r r \ r t r r l unr\ . r \ r l , r \ . sh.r . rh.{ . t l ( rcn, nal(nN [( t rDdr\ k l r . ' lLr \ . r rn urrr .^xL \ I . \ t r r \ \ , in l \ l l r . nr l )Lrr i . r r l rnrrrhcj \ ot rhrr \ , , \ , ,1e\ ' r l )s: : . , r t Ihus. rh(n,gh $c l i rd h.r . r \o! | , l1 \ r rucrunr i I rLc{ lhr r i 'Nr l rnrdNrsions bch\f .n lhc hutrnn lN* rnd thc dr! i r fh\ . het \vcfr i t l 'e f , / / r rnd thc l : rn l l \ . rn( l hcl$ecn mrn and \ !omr,r

l l r fe l r r tucs lh. l i l was possblc t ( ) hr t rnonr. ,c thcsc ( l i ! is ions. \ rDc.ereh \r( l ( (onrtncrtrr ' lcd rh. d lhcr.

lbot thc lamily in which $omcn wcrc conlincd. while ihe hunun

THE OIALECTIC OF 9PIRII

so. lccording ro llegcl. lhc drlinc Inw regulaled the priulc

..8uhr(J th( Z'l,\ qh'ch sJ{ thc ,iomarn of m(n. and a. .uch

&n . .* ' , " t lonrr 'dc rhc nrhcr t ( t : PH. : . le. lTFr dr,rncv.r rrs honour lhrough the rcspcct poid to rhe human. and the

in vrnue ofrhc honour pard (' lhc divinc ) lt $as cruciil hcrc

ilu.il kr thc stnte as citizcnr bnl thrs hc could do becausc rhcdr man to br able to

'nrlc lhc rrunsirion tr(m lhc lbmily as nn\llc

tmtiti.xtion for his dcsires. hut !ln, irn cduc.lion in the vinues,

I rny th l madc him l l l l i ) r puhl ic l i le.- Ihcn. on hr dc. lh. $hcD

lndivrdurl no longer counlcd rs r cili/cn, hc could be rcturncd'

lid lu.uulcl (hlrrlxil.r. In shr\h th( In,ltr.luJl.l,l nrl nr(r(l)

frmrly Inr hLrrial ln this th. finnilr" scncd nn inrponanl rolc ihrl

not hc sc^cd by thc d!r . l t , r r shreh i l is !n rccidcnl lhal hrs

;|l.lr wlls drn'ctl1 conncclcd $rlh his {orl lbr th. unilcbal lnd

ID thc rc.ut t . ' t I rP\ l ' r , r ' . in(( rh, . ! , \ ( \ neJnint tn rh( r 'J '

f ldr t , l " 'n

rh( rJ. . or ' rhF nrurxl nr \ ( . . . th( !Jn' , | ) sJ '

f }" ' . . t ' , ' , $!rh rh( l r$ .n r [ r . r ' r r . . hur $i th thr ,1, \ ,nf l . t r \

;Jl|08 N( r ,'bd( n.,'u(! - l lc8cl cmphrsizes l$o rc\pcer\ In $hr lh thrs {rructur. srs hF

Fk|r l i I : i rst , ! l thouSh th. d.r th ol thL Indrt ur t l $.s 81\.n nrcrnrnS

l lh ln lh( sphcre of lh. hnr i ly !nd r lvrnc h$. nonclhcl t \ \ at t incs ol '

- , lh | r

$.r !cd I soei i ] l tutrelnr rn{ l r . rnr i , rcc( l *)cLr l bonds $ r t l t rn th.

ltLrc ol lht/rrl^, so bnnging rlrcsc sphercs l('8clh.r "1 he conrrrrunrly

lrrlurc pu"c**'t lhc lruth rfrl rhc e,rrlinnrlidn of rls po$cr ir

I r r rcr( . o l rhc Di \ inc Lr\ r r r l r r lhc rcr lnr o l lhe r . lh.r $or[ l '

llt ,lrl' sreond. ih.s! ! rrc\ $rr. bR)u$r urro hamuD ;n rh.

! lh.r !n(r rcklron'h, t r$h, . I l l . ! .1 |of l ro\s xs hcing rYc \nhl .

-n

lhr hu.hrnd \r lc or f i rcnt rh, l ( l ru l r t t t \hp. shtch rrc hr\c. l

ts id th. (onrrUcn.r . \ o l de\rrc rnd |deI l l .g. l r rgu.s lhr t lhc

lnthd lnd .r\tcr lirll) rc.ogor/c er.h olh.r rnd $hat rhe) itlnd lnr r\

irl. I r'r r $x) thrr hLrshinrl xnd $ ili do In)t r. *h.re lhe iis[r r.f r(

aa. th( l rnr i l ! lnd rhe dr\ Inr j l $, rnd rhc hnxh.rrctrercnrs th. / , , , /^

L lhc hunr in lNs. c.(h \ecinB i lsc l l ns rhc conrplcnrcnr ol thc othcr:

l lhr hrothfr l prsscs l ionr rhc drvrnc l ls . $rrhin whosc sfhcrch( | | \c,1. t r . r lo hun[r ] r { l lut lhc is lcr hecomcs. or the qi l .

131

TAT OIALECTI< OF TPIRII

'Anti9one'

llcrnr nrc'cnt.d thr' norlNr Dr(tur(. llrrl(l no* ,{ccdr In lhc n(ir

ti;lon lo rMFirrc whl |.Ualltnee o! lhr! krnd could not bc sus-

lk!, in qdcr ro show {hy sprrir . . . nrusr lcalc bchrnd rt thc b€auty

t(3!c.tl lrlc (PS: 265). lte ancmprs to brir! rhis our hy lbcusing on

lr ('ry ol Antrsone. as rold by Sophoel..s in onc ol his lhcban plays.

&1cl crprcsscrl his admi.rrion lbr rhis drr ri In rmny phc.si lilr

l|mplc, in his 1-r. lrl/ra ,), ..jlrtkrna h. crlltd rl onc ol-the most

lblint. lnd in cvcry respccl rnost exccllcnt lvorks ('l ln o1-lrll trnrc'

G.^: l. n .16,1). rnd il lbmred ao iorpon,r.r pan ol his rhcdry dl rruledy:

l innr(nrrr l r rcrhrrnl of lhe phy rcnr,r ins r n) t ' r tcr d l r r lcrprctalr \c

Frtrolcr\y (s.f Donough,' l9ltq). In lhc /rrr,r'r2,hRr. howclcr.

l. conccm r' noi so nruch rcslhcli! rs eullurll fiistoricrl. hc usqs

!d,ry us l Lcy ro rtiasros! rhc liilrtrc or(nccl crhrol hlc. "li.'r.

I gru has hccn prcp:tred rn thc tlcrtr$ nlrcadt cnrthrn/cd {lheluhcr srstcr rclatronship. rhc role ofrhc l!trrl! ir bonrl. r|t n'h ol

l. dr!'nc las. ! (l thc srgnrli..o.. ol $rr). xll ol $hch rrc (cntrrl k,

lcolxr lc ' r t ramr. rs Helc l \ t l ,n {rnnDrr} I r (nn rh( t . {n,1,r ,a,r!,r.ri r n'itcs (l.ar:

l lcD_thrng 'n

th i \ r r . ledy rs loSr.x l i thc nrhlrr l is o l thr (xt .

rs scl nr .or l l ic t ov.r Ngxinst inncr l inr l \ l ( \L rnd dutv k) rhRnhcr: th. sonrn. Ant igonc. hr\ rh. l i r r l r rn lcrc\r us hcr'Fthos . ( t .on. th. man. hrs rh. qcl l i , ( or ' lhe eonrnrur i ty rshis. l ' (nyniccs IAnlrgor 'c \ hnnhcr] . r t \ ! i r s i (h hrs nr l i !c c i ty.h{d l i l l rn hel i rc lhc grr t i , l l h.bes. rDr l (

' fon. lhc n ' lLr .

'n r

prh| l ( l r - pnr l rnned hr thr . . r rn.r l \ r lh r lcr lh.rrof . \Lho g!vclhr\ enenr! o l lh. ' . i lv lhc honour ol bunr l l lu l lhrr corrnrrnd.*hrfh.orecnr.d onl \ rhc tuhlr . *ei l . nrrsorc e(\ ' ld ror&.Lf t i r \ srsr . r . In rhc l i rer ! o l hcr lo\ . lnr hcr bnrrhci- $.l i r l l i l . lhc holv dul \ o l hufrr l h ( lorrg ! , .hc rpp.r l \ r ( ' th. l0\.l rh. Bods: bur rhc god' shonr nre $ ohh,n\ rr. rh. or(lcN orld

$tr l \ o l lhJe. . dr Inor. ! ( \ o l !ccln! . htr . . ( l kr t r \h ' t .nol rhc dr!Lghr lu ls ol ! i . . \c l l (onr(ru nr lk)nxlrnd I 'o l r t ru li t (

l l . l : l - f . { f { |

rcmains.lhc hctul ofthc hous{holdatxl lhc guardian ofihed,\u\law. ln lhN w!y, the two scxcs ovcrcome their tmerelyl n.tur.tLberns and appear rheir erh'cal sisnili.ancc, as divcr$ beins.who share betwccn rhcm lhc r*o distrnclrons brlonging ro rlr(erhicalsubstancc

(PS: 27i r

Hegel thus orlucs lhrl lhc hrmrnr) ol (ircek ethical lile restt{lon r k;nd of dr \ is ion ol hbour b. lwccn ih. scxcs. onc thi l $r :rcknot!ledged by borh si(lcs. rnd on whieh lhc slibilily ol rhe (ircrk

socirl world dcp.ndcd:

Thc di l tcrcn.L ol lhc sc\cs rn( l l lcrr c lh lcr l conlcnl rcnr l rn '. . . rn rhe unlry ot-rhc ! rhst !n.c. ind i rs motcmcnl rs jusr r l r (conslanl h..omrng ol rhiu \llhndree lhe h sbrnd is \eni our h\rhc Strnr ol rhc l rnr l \ Inn) rh. eonnnunrr ! rn $hr.h hc l inds hr.s! l l - -con\eu^ hcui8 Jun ! \ rhc l rnr l \ rn thrs sxt to\sc\scs , ,1th. (onnnunrr! rr\ {rbrlin.. rnd cn{l(nng b.,ng. \o- con\cr\cl\thc conrnurt) por:e\\c\ rr th. lrnril) th. li)rnrll clcnrcnr ol1r..rcrurl c\a(lrcc- rnd o thc dr\ Inc hs rrt toscr ud ruthentle,rtk in. N.r th.r o l th( l$o r \ h! r t {c l l rbn, l r l . l ! la l 'd: hunrdn h$proeceds r r \ I \ r r r8 pfuc. \ \ l iou thc di \ rnc. thc lx$ ! i l rd ! t rclnh lionr thrr or rh! tr.th.f \(trk|. rhc con\ei1ru5 lio r rh.unconscious. nr.drr t rn l i ( rn Inrm(rf i i (v rnd.qu. l ly r . tunr '$h. ic( i t e l i rc Th. poser ol rhc nclhcr $or ld. oD lhc oth. lhrnd. hNs r l \ r ( lor l . \ is tcnc! on c lnht l InrLr l rh eonscou\nc\ \ .l l beconres c\ i \ lc f fc in( l r . tur l i l , ! Ihc *hol . is . strhlrcqui lbnunr ol r l l lhe fx, ls. rn( icrch | { r l r \ . strnl . l horrc rr lrhrs \holc. r Sfrr l $hr.h r l ( r : ror !ecl sxt i ! l i r . t idn oorsrde.,r \c l l hur l i , r l \ r $,rh,n j r \c l l . h. . rur . r t rs ns. l l nr d ls.qur l jhnunr \nh rhf \ hr ! l f

(PS l16 1r

l l .S( l Ih.r . r ( r f f ro\ t r | ( . , , hrshl \ { r ! ! r \ r \ r ( . rhhorgh.or ol .o!^.,n, . ( r rcnrn\Nr I , , . ru 'e , ' l r l , ( \ t ru( tur . tn rhL hrpt l srrrc rn $h( l jSf 'nr Nr. rcr l ' / .d In rb. (ncf t $, t rk j . one In $h,ch ( l i \ , ion\ c\r \ rc. lIn r hxhoccr lcqur l rhr iunr. ereh \ t r | . t inr i rns r \ os n donr,rn nr honnon\$ uh ,r \ oppor ' rc. n ' th l r ' rhcrf rnt(h$rs rs r . th.r thc ruthrnt ierrrr ,o l onc thknrgh r l r . orh.r ' r |S: l78r

J

I

*

3

t

118 119

THE D ALE(T

l lcg. l thus introducc\ lhc srory ol Anrrgon. lh is poirr i r r t r/'r.ror,!rdl{ii . bccruse hc bclic\cs it retts us nuch ubout why (ir.. Ie lh ic{ l l i fe $ar un$n. inable.

l l ( )wc!er. $hi lc th is nueh is c lc.r . i t is tcss c lear errct t ! h( , rHegel *dnls us l . undcrnrnd thc phv. rnd t lus cxrct ty s l l r l tes! , rhc wanrs u\ t() dtuw rio r it Sonre hntc r.gu.d thl on llcget s re!t]n,of the play. $c Ntu meanl lo s id. \ ! i lh Anr iSon. o!cr ( rcon. in ! ) i t ,rs snc rcprcscnts lhc cnrcrS'n8 nmdcnr scnse o1 lndr! iduNl i ry th.r \u l l rnralc l ) undcnDinc thc k i , rd oiruthor ihfrn ( ; rc.k \h lc rctrcscfrr tby ( reon. Ihus. on rhis x.counr. N. l rc totd rhrr , l r jeeotul i rg r , ,l lcgelran hcnn.Dcut ics. Anr igonc rctrscnls lhc ctchrt conttrbclr !ccn lh. indi \ idrr l ud rh. Shle (picr . rcr t 1978: r0.+). sher. lrs Anlrg(Dc as such rn rndr!nlur l sho hr jn{s do{r thc hrnron) , , :( i rcck cthrcr l l i tc r . l Ftc is.hn nr t ( ) r l : t t i r . I cCcl l shotr ,nrrntr lv Nirh th. c\Minle ot- ( ; tot .c lhcrc Aft j8(rrc. Ltsc$her,Socrrrcs). thr t r t rc !ucnioninC h\ indjrni( ts ol cslrhtrshet in jusr ( ,rs thc end ol m.toeh rn. l rhc hclrnnin! o l nnolher. Inorcjusl . rg. I\o$. r r i ' (caxin \ t ruc thr l I l .Eel s.s iDrtrs\ed b\ Arr j lorc r \ . ,l r .g i . l iFor. . rnd In t l is \cns. \ r .$e( j hcr \ \Drt , , r t rc l i ( r t t \ , h orN \cr l l rng hfr '1 l ic h.r \cnl \ \nt iSonc. rhrt robl . \ t o l r igur.s rhxr c\ .rpnerrc( l on t lnh (Ll t t , : t . I .1.11) l lose\cr. i r s! ,c[r srong r(J rr l .r iorn th is lhrr l l rgcl rh.rc lnr . rhoughr Ar l ,gonc {rs . r ighl . rn( t ,t rnrc! l r r th s l r . $rs -r ighr ' h lcrusc \hc rd.d . \ I nutenr indi \ t r iur l isrL. cor\(kr \nrs. out or ' f r .sorrr lof tosrt io i n, thf r \ r r r | \ o l th. s larc. ln l r . l . l tc8. t srr \ t \ to, , t . n l rgonf r , , he refrcs. i t i r iS hcr ! rcrr l \ fhcr. . rnn rn rh s.n: . r \ r ! ,, r rnc mtr lLni rhrn( r . ( . \ l rorctrr*r lc( jhrs. , \ \ l t .gctnrrk. : . te. lhe rhrrk i thr l i t \ , r \ ( r . ( r r ' \ t r rgL. , , i r f i to t r [ . t r t r !on. l t ) t \r . r ig, 'ur L) l n i f r . l \ \c l l lghrcou\ In( l l r j rxr i r f r . $h.n j i t i ( l shc \ . r .i ( l i l l l l rnrLr) l r f \ f r r l l i r t . t r l | t r ( i t r r l \ r lL ts .Srdec r t s. . \ n{ht ofh ( ,t [ . !k l { r r r l * t r ]g (D lhc olhtr . th l l cons. o! \de\ \ $hrch bctrrrgr t !rhe { l \Lf . hs l ,^n ' - r te l sc.s in rh. , , rher

' t r lc (n, ! rhc rk, t l lec i ,

I ' r , r ' r r . r f Iee. \hr l . rhxr shrch hol( \ ro rhc hunrxn t l$ lL.r .or l s. . .r r r r i . tnhcr onh lhe \ ( l r \L l l r rd din)bcdrfnccor ' rh. i i ( t r r rdmt $t l

'n\r : r \ on hcrn! hr \ o\r ru lhor i t \ ' t l ,s l i i l r ) . t rkcn rn th is $rL\

l l i .a. . t .^ | | . { . r . . l ! , . . r . . r . ,hr \ \ t , , . ( r r , , I f r , . t \ r . , , r ,J.{ . , r t , , ., ) l rh. f l r t r r \ .1r . $hirh \ onl \ r r rch(nI \ t r .x l t ! l r . r t .d rs:r nr( t r , , r

THF OIALECT!C OF sPIRIT

t n i! url agirin5l rhe slalc, mxny conlcmporary ln)duclrons

ll(,$$$. oncc his position is no ldrgcr undrrstood in these

I|ni. n mly secnr lhit llegcl lmk lhe thy to show lhtt Greek erhical

| *os onsustarrablc beenu\e rl could nol .cconnnodrle the kind of

Flu. futi(Dsl nale rcpresenled by (.rcon. rnd thus 'r

uly sccnr th.l

OG|6 '{

rhc hr(, in hrs e)res {.1. Soldnon l9R.l: 5.1n. Anlilonc rcptc-

l|r thc lorng bartlc lgrirst thc brc!kdo{n ol lhc nNsl clcmcnlary

- l

lxr lurnl . ! t / / r , i f t {nd lhc hcScnrtr} o l c i r r lsoeic l } . ) . N,)w.

lhr l rs.erturnly lcss ob\rousl ] er i r icr lo l ( rcon rhan man) c( 'nnL'n

I | ' ror th. p lxy. who l rkc i l rs unqu.st ionrhlc lhr t ( i r r Rrchrnl l .hb s

Flhl Sofho. lcs merns u\ l , ) la. l lhr l . in lh is eorrrr(^ersr ' . I l r . aghl

I rh" l l l { r rh lArr isoncl . rnd thc $ur8 $hol ly $i lh hcr tudge

f ar. , " l (Jcbb l90l : \ :1. p. \ i \ ) . lhose ho\ l i l t t (Nrrds l lcgcl e\plcr

br r , ' r ! \por( l kJ tht p lx) r r lhr i i r i i ( \ tncrrr i r $rr" : lar ( ( ) rhes.

t f i r r ] , r , \ r lc rhrr l lc8cl sould f r r ld lh. ru lhont!r i .nr \nr o l ( r .or

idF rr!|\dL[lisn rcprescnlcd b! Antlgonc. so lhal rr rs crs]' t(r scc _

br lktc l . $r th hi i \crrrrnlnr.Nl \ob|rp ol r | . \ r r l . , .ouki r .kc

lhir {"efrcscnlrng gtn!r t rc. th i . . l pr lho' ( \ ' ick. 's l9rr : 515)l rhrnk rh,s \ceonr l r . .ounl is x\ In,srx lLn rs lh. l i rn. ho$c!er

i r rhxnore" thc *rr" in shrch l lcScl pNs.nts AnrrSofc In I f r ) { -arr luhr lns $. hr \ . sccf) . seeord. $h l . l lcg. l r ruIrn | l \or f

^a'a

( (^er ( r .on 'n

lhc $r l l l r . l nnn\ (onnnerr l r l r t r \ (nr thf l l r !qtrq s. \hr l l . r l docs n n) l loN lhr l he hcl ,e\cd ( r fof { PoiLr r , , l r rBhr. or \L,nt , ror t (J Att i lone \ .

^nd rhLnl rhos. \ho l r lc

l l t l r . ' h( r r r ( ln, i rd or ( f .on b((ruse l iL\ (Nt t ,o l r r rer l thr losoth)r- . ! r r , (n,r i , , r l :Lr nr isrur lc l . r \ no IJot) . r rerdLn! ol l icg. l cr tn

i i l r { r r l , r . [ , rn rh]r l r . $. f1 , , r 1. , r ' \ f f r r nr) \ l i ( r l srn\hi l ) or rhc

r. . r r r l n, ' t ) rot)(r r ( rdrn! . i lhe ILr \ . rn l r ( r1 ( r . (nr r r \ r t r . r rrFr i r l r r , , hel t ) l i l (1, \cL, \ r , ' . ( i r l lcgcl s f ( ) l i l r .n l (n, l lo( iL \ (c

l lb la i t , l ' ) ' ) l r , ' l l5 )ln l . ( r . , r ' f f l r \ ro nr. . rht nr i : l rk! h.rh rh. \c r t .ounls n lc , :

r . l , { l . ( r \k l r , , rc rhr l I l (g. l $rnle( l l t ) r .1. \ ide\ ' . r fd lo nr$.

aa.,r | l ' \nr i ! ( { . o i ( reor *c,c NtNs.nlx l r \ . o l rhc l i t r .c i o l '

- . | l rn ' r \ ' \ l r t r l i th. ( i tu( l * . r l ( l toul( l nol r . tonrnr\hr( . r rd $ hr(h

arr l nf t ' i , ,Lr lh l r l L l ,^rn A hel($ r . .out l rs lh.1 l lcg. lu{r l lh. l l . r -. , . , ru r l , . , r r l i . r , , ! . t l \ \ho$\ hos ln l l re ( i rc. l sor[1 ! r t l ' n( lc

140

TNE DIALECTIC OF sPIRIT

(Anligone and Creon) had fixed allcgilnces lo one sphere or rhe olhcrso rhrl when lhese sphcres camc inlo conflicl (lhrough the li8urc oPolynices. who was significantly 60rl r male political 6gure and lh!.parr ofrhe porr. drd a dead brolher and lhus pan ofthc family), lhr'confi ict could oot bc teiollrd in-ary \ily. As I undcrsland il. in llegcl .

vi6i thc central reaion why this opposilion wrs inevitable was rhcfrcl thltl in Greek elhical life. each individunl (nan or woman. brothuor sister) had their 'slatiorr'. and saw lherr dutles detined id. them lfthese lernN HcSel rcfcrs to this lspccl ofcrcek ethrcrl lili whcn h.declares lhrl: in this ethrcal realm . . selt-consciousncss has not )clrcccived i ts due rs. i panrcular indiv idur l i ty . Ihcrc i l hrs the l r lur .on ihc onc hand. merely ol rhe unilers.l will [( rcon. !s a manl. itlion the othcr. ol consanSuirity [Antigone. as a $onla ]. rrri panictrlrindivrdLral counrs only ds d shrdowy unrcal i t ! (PS: 279). Therc r :then, a r(]ls! u wluch t[c Ored. clhrcal world co]lapsed bccausch4d tntLllicicnr space for 'the individqal : it is nor bccausc Anlisofrrcprcscnlcd th is Indi ! rd la l j \ l ic rcbel l ion against thc s ld le. bul beeau:.ncirhcr Anrrgone or ( ieon wcre rble to r isc (bo\c their soclal rpherL'lnd sce !alue in lhe posi l ion of lhe othcr. As ! rusul t o l lh is socir l l \defined scll'conccplion. Anligone lell lhll she had no choicc but r,,bury her brcthcr when called upon lo do so, sincc lhrs wrs hcr (t.

wi th in thc schemc oi thrngi i l ikewise. ar hcad of nr lc. ( . rco! I i Lcqu{lly obligcd lo ii,rbd lhc bunal and $ lo funish Anligone lor h.disobcdiencc l r is hecrusc . rch indi \ idur l idcnr i l lcs hirn or herselrt !hol ly s,rh one olc id ing c lh ic! l inpctul i !c thal l lcgel characlcrL/e '

r rhe elash het$. .n Ant igonc rnd ( icon rs l r rgrc Ncl lhcr rs abl . to s l . 'bnel i iom lh. ohl igr t ion\ thr l go $r( l r Ihcir . . r t r r . l l l d. tcrnr lncd f l r ( lr r thc cthier l otulcr :

In l th is. th i rx l .ons(k{rsncs\ l lhcrc is rro c.pr i tc .nd cqur l ly n, ,s l rugglc. no in( lc.r ! .n. \L,rcc rh. n[ l ing rnd lcst ing ol h$ hr.bccn Si \en LLlr i or lhc e(rr t r r r ) . lhe c\scn.c ol crhicdl l i l i f t t r th .

conserou$rc$,: , f nn. t l i r rc- !n$r\ . r i rg. \ i lhout conlrrdrcrr ,n l( i )nscq0crr ly. $c rr . nol l ieed $i lh lhc v)ny spechclc ol re, ' l l i ror b. l$Nn l ) rssion rnd dul)- . noi * i lh thc conr ic \ tc.. lc o l r .o l l is ion bclween dul) : rnd ( lu ly Thc . th 'c. l .ofr . r sncss . . . knows shr l i l hus () do- rnd has l l r .Ndv dccidcLi

142

THE D AL ECTIC OF 5PIRII

wherher ro belong to the diline or rhe human law. This immedi-aie Gmness ofdccision is som€thing implicit. and rherefore hdsat the srme tim€ the signilicance ofa natuEl bcing as we havese€n. Nature. notthe acc ident of c ircumsteces or choice. assrgnsone sex 1() one law, the other to the other law; or conversely. ihetwo ethical powers themsclles sive lhemselves an individualexistence and actullize thcnselves in the two sexes.

(PS:279 80)

Thus. as soon as an issuc ariscs in which the dulies orlhe man and

ir duties of rhe woman pull in opposile directions. the individurls

concerned could only find themsehes in conflicl. as ncilhc. could see

iow any othcr course olaclion was open to lhenr: Anligone n!r/ b'rry

i.r brolhc., ( rcon , J/ uphold the law of lhc strtc. Ncilher can the.e-

lbr. frcl any real guill lbr wh.t thcy hrvc done. as each believes they

i.vc done whut was required of lhcm. even il-lhe resull oi so act'ng

l.t been disasrrous: ncithc. do lhey feel any fear or any pcrsonrl

Ii|nosity lowd.ds rhcir opponenl:

l l l l is nor / r^ pldicuh. indi ! idual lho rcts and is gui l ty i lb. rs/r,r self hc is only thc unrell shadow. or he cxisls nrcrcly rs aunilcrsll sclL rnd individuality is purcly rhc /i,r'dl momenl ol'rhc lcl !s $reh. the conlent bcing thc hws xnd the customswhich. for lhe indi ! idur l . arc lhosc of h is chsr r d s lar 'on . .Sell-consctuusress within lh. nrlion dcscends lionr lhc univ.rs{ldnly as hr down Ns mc.c pxrlicuhrity. and nor down lo lhc rngleindrvidual i ty which posi ls r f exelusi !c s. l l l rn Nciur l rxrs lcnce{hich in i ls rc l ior rs ncgr l rvc t (^\rrds i ts. l l Orr lhe contrar} .r t \ Ner ior rc\rs on \ecu.,) ! i t idtn. . in lhc wholc. unmrxed $i thntry ! l icn c lcnrel l l . ic i lhu $rth la!r Dor hoslr I ly .

(PS 2l t2 l )

th thrs pic lurc. lherclore. rndlv idu. ls s inrply rc l in lhc wiry they lccl.$|gcd k) by lhcir s)crrl r!'sl)onsibiliticsr in llndrng lherr ucrntt l.Ndsh ut lcr ing. th.y rc! | ,^ ' rhNt whrt they were cal led upon to do wrs

athrol ly hlcr ior 1o whrr orhcrs $crr cr l lcd upon to do. whi ln ni l lL.llrt thrl this uNs duc lo l-ulc"/fulher lhan erhic{l misjudgcmcnl on

143

THE DIALECTIC OF 5PIRII

This then €xplains why on the queslion ofAntigone orCreon'] .Hegel mosl often adopts . balanced view- (Cf. Kaufinann l97l: 201.

'Hegel's understanding of Greek Fdgedy far surpalsed that ofmost orhis delmctors. He realized lhat at lh€ centre of the greatest trag€di.:ofAeschylus and Sophocles w€ find noi a trai{ic h€ro bul a trasic coll i

de& aDd that the conflict is nol between good and €vil but berwccfone-sided positions, each ofwhich embodies some good.'Fora similrrvi€w, see Shklar 1976: 82 l.) So, rather thm tzking either to repr..senl any son of progressive modem standpoinl (either indrvidurlconscience in the case ofAntigone, or the secular state in the case olCreon), he sees rhem both as twical oflheir Greek world. a wo.ld lholhas no method for overcoming its underlying dualisms. He thus doc'not condemn either ofihem, but ralher sges each as a viclim_of thcil

-lillrEd lqllel qnq qrgril_r,olgeptioi. where il is rh. limire(lness oflhrlconception thal brings about the collapsc oflhe Greek ethical worl(l:

The collisjon between the two high€st moral pow€rs is sel fonhin a plastic fashion in that suprcm€ and absolute example orrtagedy. Antiqone.ln this casc, family love. whal is holy. whxtbelongs ro thc inncr Iile and to inner feeling, and which becaus(ofrhis is also c. led the Ia$ oflhe nether gods. comes into collision with rhe law ofthe Slate. Creon is nol a tyrant, bul rcall\I moral po$eri Creon is nol in the Nrong: hc maintains lhat llrulaw of ihe Slate, the authority of Sovcmm€nr, is to be held irirespecr, and that punishmcnt follo$s lhe infraction of the lasEacb oflhcsc lwo sides rcrlizes only one of lhe moral pow.rs.and hds only one ollhese as ils contenri this is the clcnrcnl oione-sidedness here. and rhe nreaning oferemlljusricc is sho$rin this. thal both end !r uriusriccjun bccruse rhey ilre one-siderl.though al the sanrc timc borh obtain ju$icc too. Bolh are recornized as havins r vrlue ofrheir o\rn in rhe unlroubled coume ormorality. llcrc rhey bolh hale rheir own validity, but a validil\which is equ lized. 11 is only the one-sidedbess in rheir cl,inrwhich justice comes tbrua.d to oppose.

(LPR: I I . pp.264 5)

Thus, rs onc commenlalor has observed. 'For Hegel. it is nol an unfolrunate contingenr facl thal humans musl lerve the harmonious Crrdef

144 145

in which they ar€ at home in the wo.ld; instead, it is concep-

nccesslry that this moment ofimnediacy be overcone' (Siewart

30s).Now, chaBcteristically. Hegel do€s not really t€ll us in the

how it might be possible for lr! to go b€yond this 'on€-

' in a way th€ Greek! could not: lhb positive task is largelv5 he Philosophy of Righr, wherE tensions betwe€n familv and

and the human and divine law. ate treat€d at length, and suppos-

,lrolved- So. to take on€ exampl€, while for the mn in lhe G.eek

lher€ exisl€d a sharD division between family and state, in

't vi€w ofthe mod€m slale, there is no such sharp division, in

u man is both pan of the family and part of the state, where.

le, he repr€sents the family ir lhe sute as h€ad of the house-

It is an inrereqtinS question. bui one we cannol consider turtherhow far Hegel succecds in overco'ning the further dualisms hc

in his discussion ofCrcck ethical life: it is also a. inter-

qu€stion. which we caf,not dwell on eith€r. how far such

is even desirable (ci Nussbaum 1986: 68).Foflowins his discussion of ,4nliSo,e i1 rhe Phehonenototy'

thcn looks again at th€ Greek s@ial world. showing how thc

lc$ions betw€en the sDheres of men and women. state and

. trccaine exDlicil once their cthicrl differenccs brought these

THE O IAL ECTIC OF SPIRIT

inlo conflicl- On the one sid€, the slalc ried lo undermine the

ism ofwomcn and lheir panicularistic allesiance to thc familv'

thc young 1o war. In this constant banling ofcily slates. dll sal-

for consciousncss in (ireck elhrcal lifc has been losli individ-

on ihe other side womankind the evcrhsling ironv [in lhe life]

community (PS: 2u8) became a source of inlr!8uc and conuP_

b the life ol the statc. cncouraging the young to challenge the

ofth€ir elders. who could thcn only reasscn their position bv

3r.hst€n f.cc oftheir socill identitics, as the 'livins unitv ofy'h'rhsrGrcd into a multilude of seplrale atoms (PS: 289).

The Roman wodd

|b ncrl subsection. €ntitled Legrl Status'. Hegel argues that

Eld world buih up by rhc Roman empire was shaped bv this

i /TI lE OIALICTIC OF 5PIRIT

'shanering of the polir. and as a resuh individuals now came ri)conccive of lhem$lves as

^,rlrr. ra*er lhan cili/€ns (ct Thc

Positivity of rhe Chnstian ReliSion'. in ETw: l5G7). tbr Hc8cl.'pcrson' is a quintessentially modcm social calegory. whcreby indi-vidunls scc themselves as occupyin8 fivat€ spheres with their owninteresls, l€gally proccted from the inledereDce ofothc6. In conlrasrro the lhrck srlf{onceplion of(;reck ethical life. in which rhe indi,vidual is sq:n $ pan oflhe univcrsal ethical substance. the individurlqua person vrews himsclf in abslrncl lerm!- mrher lhan rdcnriryinshirnstlf wirh rny particular characrcr or socral stalion (hcnce. llcgclchim\, thc nnrlction of thc kind of s€ll-renuncrat'on prcached h)Slorcs rn lhis pcriodl. Eecnusc pcrsoflhood involvcs mcrcly lhat OncqLu scll-consciousncss in general (l's: 2el), lhc aclion pctrons undeFldkc rs k, sccurc /',?(/^ lbr lhcmsclvcs. for while privale owncFhiplirccs olhcr rndi!iduah to reco8ni:/c lhc lcgal sl{tus ol lhc f.o0enyowncr. no individual is lelttql ht rherr propeny (in the way rhatAntagoru and (icon werc dclincd by thcr s(rial mlcs). nnoc thrs can0luays bc lransfcnid or legally'llicnated. Thc pcNon is thus nctcr.cally cnlr8cd *ilh the porld.rs such. and hcncc IlcScl ass({rirtcs thrsoullmt wilh Sceplicism

Now. in his Prtl)r.?h ,/ Rrsrl. Ilesel besrns his rccount ofthe ratirrral sldtc wirh this notion ol personhood. and mrkcs clc{r thllhe incnds r() incorporarc lhis notion into his 6nal p'ciurc. in a wrylhai lhc ( i rceks weru unablc t ( , do (c l : PR: \185). l lowcvcr. l lcgclnrakcs cqually clcarthar rhe rar|('ulstrrc cannor bc.onsrructcd aroun(llhN v{nl .rlcgory dl,r.. bul rhar pcrsonh{xxl musr h( brhDccd $irlra lcss abstrr.t, lcss legalirrc $ll-eonccptron. shich l.!\cs nun lornrnc ol lhc $nsc of pol i r . r l eonnrunxy lc l l by con\e(ulrcss in lhc'hupty shtc of (neck c lh ie. l l lc In hi \ drscussnro r thc l ' r . r ",n"r//djir llcgtil also atremtrs k) hfln8 our the onr,sidcdness of lhcso(rrl strL'cturc rcpresented by i'lpcrinl Romc. Ihc difiiculr! llcgrli r lcnlr l ics sccnrs to be thrs: on thc on. hrnd. thc only *dy thc bgalpcr\,!rt thil nr!d. up lh. Rontin \rarc could liel ro\ r{rrl trn } $rtllcaeh olhcr $ns lhrcuAh lh. Iilrrc ol thc cnlp.()r. trl|o c'llh icd thc\o!.rcrgnrr ofrhrt rtltc. on rhc orhcr hrnd- \och sa\ rh. drssolulkrnol lhc polricrl communily Inkr ! colte.tron ol sell-rnrcrc(.d rndi!idu.ls thrl thc cmperor coukl only srrnd up lor lhc srrlc hy dpposng

146

rfr€ DrA!€crrc oF sPrir ' I

tho6€ individuals and becomina a ryranl so undcnninins any possr-

bility of social cohcsion. oncc h€ is subjected ro the arbilrary power

of th€ empercr. the Roman citizen quickly comes lo sec ho\r emPtyhis appeals to lcgal right arc. and hence fecls him$lf lo b€ alone in a

morally arbitmry univenc, in which 'misht is ri8ht . Much as UnhappyCons.iousness had donc bclbrc, €onsciousness now slruSSles lo nake

its€lffecl at home' in a world from which it fecls fundamenially alien-

Self-Alienated Spitit Cultur€

ln thc prcvious seclbn. IlcScl has prcscnted a porlrait of'lhc happy

.tale of Greek elhicttl lilc. wilh an account of how it crmc to break

down. In this section. hr cxplorcs the consequcnccs oflhrr brcakdownfor thc modem world, in which we i:rce ! serics ol opposilions thar

werc.ot erpcrienccd ns such pnor lo modemily, bclwccn slale ed

individual, d'line and hum . duty ud indrvrdul|l c('nsciemc. llegel

chamcrcrizes lhrs sh;fi rs a trunsition from Truc Spnn lo Sell-

Alionaled Sprnf:

lTlhis [Sell'Alicnlrcd] spirit conslrucls for irsclf not mcrcly dworld. but a world thal is dotlblc. divided and scll:opposcd. Theworld ol thc cthical Spirit [i.e. True Spi.it] is its own p&a?,/worldl and lhcrclbrc cach ol iis powcrs exisls rn lhis unily. and in

so li.aslhcy rrc drslrncl li,n onc anoderthey arc rn squilibriumwith rhc $hole llc.. lic li)r Sllf-Alicnurcd sp'ntl, ho{c\er

lnlorh'nt hr\ i st;ir rhar rs g.oundcd $nhin nsclf nndind$ct ls i l . hut $(h h,h i tshLrng inrontthinSouls idcof rndal icnkr rr . The cqui l ihr iunr dl rh! {hole f not the uni ty $hieh remains*rlh itseli nor thc conlcntrrrcnl thal comcs lio hirlrng returncd

lo i lsc l l bul rcsls on lhe rr l icnrh)n ofopposi tcs. Ihcwholc. thcre-lbru.likc cNh \rrflf nnncnt, is. scll--ali!'n!lcd ucturl'ly.

(PS: 295 5)

In this $ection. lhcrclarc. ltcgcl l.ics lo show how m(tdcm conscious_

ocss har adoplql o 5eric5 (,t lund.Drcntal dichohmus 'n

ns conceptron

ot rhc world. and how lhis has nudc il imFx$blc lc conscrcusnessin this nrqlcm lbrn) n) l..l rt homc .

141

THE D ATECTIC OT SPIRIT

Culturc

Hegel opens his discussion by focusing on 'Culture and lts Realm orActudlity'. Culturc'hcre is a tnnslation ofthcOcman lc.m Bi[/!rf .which has connolalions of educalion as well as of cullivated soc'et)and morcs. Ilegcl lssocialcs scvcral imponanl dichotomics wilh lhirform ofconsciousness, the lirst being the way ir distinguishes betweenthc nalu.il selfind rhc cililizcd or cuhurcd onc. Whercas in rhc(;reek and Roman wo.ld. nature played a lundamenral role in determinins thc socir l idenr i ry of lhc indiv idual (ns man and woman . I i t rexample). here the individual sees society as requiring the transtbm!lion ol his or hcr purely nalLml bcins: Althou8h here lhe self knot\sitselfas dd seli: yet its a.tuality consists solelJ" in lhe setting-aside olirs nllLml scll' (PS: 298). This is rhe kind of opposition belwccnsociely and nalure of which Rousseau compl.ined. wherc nran s.lsabour trying k, transfonn hinlself r{,di, r/ ndtLrre.

As wcll as sceing an opposilion betwecn nlturc and cullurc.modem consciousness also distinsuishes ils ends as an indi,,idual liomIhG{ of lhc stalc. rnd so scis up dn opposilion bctwccn self intcrcnand ihe geneml inleresl. shere il lates the ibrmer lo he 'hnd and thehtler to bc 'g@d . Il thcn dividcs thc soci!] redhn inlo wcihh . *hichir !jews as bad because il inlolves the pursuit ol paaicular rnler!.srs..nd nNlc powc.. which it licws !s good bccrusc it is thc rcdlnr ofunl tenal concems l l then comes lo see. howe!er. lhat as an indr! idur lit is .licnllcd fronr thcse concenrs. and $ comcs to llnd the stat. .licn.nd oppressi !c: l l ib l lo$s. rhen. lhal lhe consciounress lhal is in rn( ll i , r i rse l - ( loes l in l i r rhe (r lc toscr i rs s inrplc csscncc rnd Nbsistdi . . rn g.rcrNl . but rot i ts indrvldual ' ry Ns su.h: i l d.cs l i l lhere i ls, r r r r rn herng. br l nol shr l r l cxplc i t l ] is /o/ i^c/ / : Rr lhcr. i l l ind\thr t r l rc s l r lc fo! \cr drso*ns xcror qua f t l i \ idu! l rctron and \uhduc:i l i r ' ( ' ohcdrcnee t l 's : . l0. l l . Al rhc srnre l imc. rhc indiv idudl sccs$cr l rh Ns rddrcrsrng hLs inr l r rcsrs as an indi ! idul l . hrs p.rnicular needs.$hi lc r l { , bcrret i l ing, , lher rndr! iduals in lhc sanrc \ ry: hc thcrclbr.conrcs to scc scrlrh rs 8{hd and slale posc' rs br(l Bul con\cxnr$.css mry ! l i ) rc! !^t thrs cvaluul ion oncc a8r in. rnd scc scr l ice ol 'the slrtc rs clhicrlly hiShcr dran mere ind;!rdual seit-'entoymenl

kced sith t h is conr|diction. consci( $rcss now rr;i's ro resol!ci l br . c!r ! rng lhrnqs up sl iSht ly di l l i rcnl ly. rnd c i rhcr t rc.r ing sr . tL

148

IHE D ALECIIC OF SPlRIT

power and wcrllh as rd, good . or treating lhem as ror, bad . Hegcl

hbels this As a cont.asr bctween nohl.andignohle lor brse) conscious-

Fss respectively, whc.c lhe formc. is happy to sene the stale and has

a posilile e\aluation of ic prosPcrity, and lhe latler resenis 'ls

subor-

dination 1() lh€ ruler and despiscs lhe wealth lhat il noretheless seeks

Hcgel argues that.just as consciousness could not uPhold a simPlc

dichotomy belween state power as good and wealth as bad . so too

ir cannor uphold lhis dicholomy belween the nohlc and the ignoblc as

th€ noblc consciousncss linds it imPossible to pul ilself Senu'nelv rn

r.rvicc ol the stalc. and so shows ilsell ro be no betler ihrD lhe ignoble

consciousness. Ilcgcl s discussion proceeds !s foltows

Firsl. thc noble consciousness idcnlilics itselfwith the state in I

tPiril of sclt{tn unc i.tion. as the he.oism ol \?rn'e, the rittl?whrch

$crifices the slngle indi!'dual to thc unr!emal. lhcreby britrSing lhis

intoerr . r rn,L r lc/r^ i , r . , 'n(qhurulunrr l l ) r !noLn(c\r . \ (s i ions

md cnjoymcnr and aols and is cffeclive in the inlerests of the rulinS

power' (PS: 106). llowevcr, as the noblc consciousncss is a$are thal

!h€ stale depends on xs sclf-s crilice, lnd rs il docs nol really bcl'cve

thar the stllc is rn a posilion to commlnd its obcd'cncc. rt r\ no morc

than' lhc rdrgr l i ussl l (PS: 107). who whcn i l corrcs to thc pornl

is not rcally prep!rc.l k, lbrgo his lilL or paniculrr 'IrlLJcsts:

-ll n)eans

that hc has in l-!cl reserued his o$n opnrion and his oun p rticuldr

will in facc of lhc f o$cr of thc slatc His conduct. thc.clilre. confl icls

rr i th the i l lcrcn\ o l thc nr le und i \ chr l r . td is l ic o i lh. rgnoblc

ronscioLr$css $hr.h is ! lwr ls on lhc lornl o l rc\ol l (PS 107)

ln o cr ro prcsc^c lhe n.blcr isnoblc dis l inel iot) . consc'ousness

musl N(hierc r mtrc mexninl l i l sel l :s. . r i l icc lhrr r r h is ntnagcd

hithcflo: w! rh.rcli're nr\c lirln rh. hctu)isnt of sc^ice ro thc

hc(] i rn ol iL l lcr) . *hcrc th. lo$.r o i lhc nnlc rs .shbl ished In lhc

fomr or ' rn indi ! ( lur l Drnr.rc l r . anolhcr wi l l s . l rbole thal of h is

subjects. sho s{. ! r Nl lcsi t lncc ro his powcr (c l l PS: l l0 l l )

lk)wc!.r , lhc nl lcr no\ bceonrcs dirorccd f iom lhc unrvcrsr l rn lcrcst .

and himsell h!'.onres r scll s.ninS (lcspol As n rcsull, lhe noblc

conscious css linds itsell dcslising thc sovcrclln. much litc lhc

ignoble consc()usness did. (onsequ.nr ly. whi lc in i l ix l l ) r l 'e noble(onsciousn.ss srw lhe nt ,narch s rol . ns I d ispcnscr ol-ser l th

'n !

p(^ni \ . l ighl . rnd wrs 8r l lc tu l lo hinr l i t r h is l i r8cssc. oncc lhc

tI

i

149

lLri 50 151

THE DIALECTIC OF 5PIRIT

monarch becomes a despot. rhe noble consciousncss now views hisnced for .oyal patronase as humiliaring. and so wealrh become\nothing more rhan a badge of€nslavemeit: 'lll linds that it is oursideof its€lf and b€lon8s to another, Rnds its pefi,raltr as such depen,dent on the contingent p€rsonalhy of anoth€r. on the accidcnt of rmoment, on a cl)price. or some other uterly unimpo.tanl circumskncc. . . The spirit of gratiludc is, ihe.efore, the feeUntsoflhe mosr profounddcjcction as well as ofcxtrcmc rebellion (PS: 313 l4). once again.lhe outlook ol lhe noble consciousness has becomc thlt of thc bascconsciousness. Al the same trme. thc monarch becomcs compled yetiunher, as thc power rhal comes r,, nh wcallh leads him to despisc thoscwhom he rulcs: ln this arrogance which fancies it has. by thc gifi ol'a mcal. acqurred the selfofanother's l and rhcrcby gained lbr nse '

lhc submission ofanother's inmost being. il overlooks lhe inner rebet-lion oflhe other: n overlooks thc t-acr lhai all resttuints have been casloll: ovcrlooks lhis stale ol sheer inncr disruptron in which. rhe !,r-i/?dill of beins-foFself havins bccomc divided against ilsclf. allidenl i ty. a l l exisrcncc. is disrupted. and in which rhe senl imenr nndvicw,po'nr ol lhe bencflctor sufter mosl dislo.lion (PS: _tl5).

In thrs socrally alienared world. where consciousncss has lbundrl impossiblc to overcome rhe di!ision bet$ecn sociely ind the indi-vadual. nothing hds retained the vrluc it .ppeared fu h !c. rs crch hasbecome rransnnrtcd inro 1rs opposilc:

I t is rh is rbsolute and uni lcrsal i r \dsnn nnd r l icnNt ion ot therctur l \yor ld rni l o l lhought: i t is t )Ltu r u l tuk What is lcrrnt inrhs $or ld is rhxl r . i lher rhc d( rrr l r r ! o i towcr und $c! t th. norlhcrr sneei l ie l , /n \ . rood r d bad.or rhc .onscrou!rc\r o l ''good xfd hrd ( thc nohlc rnd rhe rgnohlc consciou\ c\s) .liossc\{ lr'lrth: rrr lh. contrrry_ i|ll lhc:c monr.rls hceo terr \encd. orf .hr iSrng in lo thc olh.r . ( l {ch i5 rhc opposncol r rselr ' . . \ \ 'hxt $c hrte hcrc, lhcn. Ls rhj n l l lhc monrcnrsc\ .eurc r unr\cNiLtuslee on onc Nnorhcr. crrh just !s nru.hr |enir tc\ 11\ o\ f sclr : rs | l l -or |ns i lsc l f inr(J i rs otposi lc xnd in

HE O ATECTIC OF 5P]RIT

ln becoming aware of this interchanSe betwecn rts categones.

whrl tlegel calls ihe disrupicd consciousness beSins to have a more

dillecrical understanding of such concepts, in contrast to the rigid

6inking ofwhat Hescl calls 'the honest individual : The hon€st indF

vidual takes each momcnl to be an abiding esscntiality, and is the

uncducated thoughtlessness of not knowing thal il is cqually doing

thc reverse. The disrupted consciousncss. however. is consc'ousness

of the pen€6ion. dnd. moreo\er. of the nbsolule penersion Wh.l

,{!vails in il is lhe Nolion. which brings logcthcr in a unny the

lhoughts which. in rhe honesl indi!idual,lre far apad. rnd its lrnguage

l. thereforc clcver md wrrty (PS: ll7).Usingas his modclhcre Diderot s,Rr,'.zr l{,vr?r.! (Nhich was

Frblished posthumously. in Goerhe\ rrandalion. in 1805). Hegel

coitrasls this nihilinic wil of thc nephew s disrupted consciousness'

with the inanicuhcy ol-lhe horcsl ntrrtor. who tries (o cnhn thc

formefs atrempl k) olcaum a1l valu.s. ln lhc fice ol-lhe nePhcw s

d.ep sclf-knowled8c and prolbund social crilicism. the honest inda

vidual is mrde 1o look naivc {nd foolish. ptutlculrrly in his susseslior

that thc lrdividull remore hims.lf fronr rhc qodd ot pcNe.lon lnd

rium to nature. ln fdcl. howe!er. Hcgcl nr8gcsts lhrl tlh1lc thc honcsl

individurl is powerlcss to chrngc lhc cytricrl nclrhcw. thrs '(lsrupled

highcr serbusncss. rs its \cnst ol lhc holk){ncs\ ot rhc .uhu.nl wodd

lcrds thrs con\cnun.ss bcyon(i x.

Faith and Enlightenment

I1tr l lcgcL. lh i \ N^c b.)ond lhe x l ieMlc( l $or ld ol cuhurc c in r . rkc

lso diR( l i (nrs. c i lhcr u\ ' l : r i th or !s turc insighr ' . whcrc lhc lanner

i€cls rcconci l i r t ion in r 'bclont l ouls idc lhc in( f i \ id ' ra lsubj .c l . whi lc

thc hr ler sccts ru.on. i l iNl ion b) tunr ing insNrd. l ( ) the \c l r ' lhr t . !n

rcmNin unsul lcd bf lh. \ rn i t I o l - the socrr l $or ld:

Il]hc cssencc ol iilrdr . bcconres a supers.rsihl. qorkl whichis esscnrr lll on ,l'.r' in rclalron lo seli'consci(naness. In pore

insighl. on th. olhcr h!nd. thc rransxion ol pur. lhoughl lnlo

eonsciou\ncss h.s lh. otpo\ i re det$nr in. l iur : ohiecl i ! i lv hrs lhc

iI

{PS: I l6 l7)

IHE DIALICIIC O' SPIRIT

significancc of a m€rely ncgative cont€nr a content which i\nduced to a moment and relums into the selfi lhal is to say, onlylhe s€lf is really lhe obj.ct of thc s.lf, or the object only hastrulh so faf as il has the form ofthe sell

{PSi 124)

Hegel Soes on to contrasl failh and pure insiSht according k)how they respond to cullurol consciousness. On the one hand. faithaccepts thc chim of Rarneau s nephcw. rhat lhe real world is a soul-lrss existcncc (PS: 126)i bur ir Scts bcyond the nephew s despair bysehinS up anorhcr world in which true s,rlisfaction can be found. Onthe other hand. puac insrghr acknowlcdacs the nephew's cynical chimrthat Senius and lal.ni halc no rcrl mcaninS or siSnificance. bul leam\frorn rhis a kind of lib.ftl csrlrta.ilnisni. rhere allare seen as equallrcap,blc ofusin8 rhcir rcason. and hcncc s cqually laluable: '!ndi!Ldualiryl counis m$cly a! somethrnS uni!crelly lcknowlcdsc{, viz. r\an educ.lcd individuality (PS: 127). Wrrh rhis tum rowards a r.tio,nalastic humanasm. Hrgrl lltcs us on ro thc nexl pan of th€ seciion.where his discussion ofrhc l;nliShretrmcnt r.,cs ro b.ing out how fanh'and pure insiSht comc to bc opposcd to onc andfter. and thus hosncither can brin8 sdisfactron lo consciousncss.

This drscussion has ntlr:rclcd much intcrust, as it is ! marrcr ofcontrolersy \lhethtr IlcScl should bc int.rp.eledFnlghlenment li8ure. or whclh.r lon rhr conaary) he reprcsentspcrhrps thc highcn cRtrcsr ion ol thc rdqls rnd imbit ions of thctul*ftkr. hi ny \icw. (ftrce $rs ck,scsl k) lh. rruth, whcn h.rcn[rkcd thu| l l lcgcl l ( l rd nor s inply rr . jcet rhc l :n l ishrcnnrcnr l idnrsl ' ic l h. r , r ) of lg i lnrcd. bur r .n, l !cd i r in i , r ,nore prol i )und an(teonrplc\ r r l ion. l rsnr ' l ( io(c l r ) : l l 7 l i l r ! rs l ! r r f modi l lcd) i lh i l is .l lc8cl s !nrhi \ r lcn(e l ( 'N: t rd{ lhc t in lghlc lnrcnl rs such is cxphinedh) hrs.on!rel t r lhrr r l l i r l .d k, {chtNc whl l i l I r (nniscd. rnd i t mustlhcrr l i t rc al l bc ( i . ) r 'e ngr i l r l r r nr{c srr is l ! ( r , )$ sry. In his crr l icr\\trtr. Lnth nntl Xtu^t tuk . llcscl hr(l

'nrdc.l.'.r h(N rh6 $a\ pnnic-

ularly lruc ol thc rchtkD 6+lwccn rcan)n and r)(h: far liom setlrnSrcason rbo\c hnh In i pR)ptr mrnnor. lhc l:nlightcnmenl had onl)succc..lcd in .crntr{xiucrnS l nc* form of imlionalsm. bccause oflhcsimphnrc way In *hieh ir concci\cd ofthc rssucs rcliaious rhoughr

i| 52 153

THT DIALTCIIC OI 'PI i IT

r.i!c!: Philo$phy has made its€lfthe handmaid of lhilh once morc(fK: 56), bccaus( lhe F.nlighrenment s superlicial cnliqu€ left faith

|!to|lch€d. so rhar it is lo faith Ether than to the EnliBhtenment lhat

tlildophy has rerumed. lt is in order to avoid this relum to an an$-ism thar sers the Absolute . .. b€yond R€ason' (fK: 56) lhal

i. Enlightenmcnt's carlier atlack on faith rnu$ be rcvisn€d. and

'rlsolved into somcthing more satisfactory. fhus. thorigh Hegelt*es

lith in a scnse more rc'x,r/!h than many ol rht thinkcrs of lhe

lolightennrcnl. by secing it as a fundamental aspccr ofconscn'usness

i|t runs dccp. hc does so bccause he thinks lhal othcrwisc ralionalis'n

"ill itsclf bcrome rrivillizcd .tnd one-sided. lcav;n8 ir luln.rahlc lo

iith oncc more.HcScl chrraclcrizes the Enlighlcnmenl s supcrticial rnd puruly

lcgative vics ol fa(h al the outsct ofhis discnrsron in thc /'r(r,'

lPurc ursighrl linows lhal flith is opNred k) purc nrsrghl.optxxcd r(l Rclson and rruth . . . llr secs linh In 8cDcr.rl ro hc.r lrs\uc ol rupcrstilions. prqtudicc'. and crors . Thc Drs*-sarc thc tr.trms of thc deceplid ol ,t /,,r.arrr,/ $hich. in ilscn!n)uJ .onecit. holds itself ro hc rhc \ol. poss$:or ol tnsighlaDd pursucs i ts orhcr sel l ish ends !s $cl l . . lknn lhe nut idr lyand eonlirs(,n ol lhc peoplc btuu8ht rboul hy rhc lri.lcry olpricstctuli. despolisnr. *hich dcspiscs holl. (lflr$s l;r ilscll lhcird!rnlagc ol Lrndistutcd donr in! t ion nor l thc Iu l l i lncnl o l i t rdcsircs rn( l . rpr iccs. but rs i tsel l n l rh. sr t r rc t inr . lh is sNrrc ( iu l l -

ncss dl Insight, lhc srnle "uplrsr i l rdn

rnr l cror.. t t0

liccd $rth lhrs llssuc ol sul]ers(rlx,n . rhe llDl'lhlcnnrtnl scls oul l()hb€Bl( rhf ! fn.rr l I r , ,* " ! r l 'L pct 'nh. $hn-( nr , !

h.s tf,..omc corruptcd hur $ho can bc brcu8hl ov.r lo puro insrlht :

it thLrcli)rc linl's rr $rrpn\inglj_.!sy b loppl. tht rlols ol lijth. shich

conl i rnF I , { r r h, ' * , t rn,hr. ,nrr , ' l , rn, l cn,nl) rL l ,E, , 'u- ron\ . t {hnc\ ' I '

'th. nc* scrpcnl ol $rsd(inr rrrs.d on high lor dorltM has In lhisw.y parnlcssly casl nrrc l t . $ i thered skin l l lsr l l2 l . Al lhc samctimc. thc LnlShtenrncnt *-cs irstll as brinsir8 itx||n ! ktnd ol- nc$&wf, lor nrrnkrnd. rnd thus

'nusr .om. on thc sccnc *rth all lhc

)

THE OIATTCTIC Of 'PI i IT

farfarc of sn intellectual revolution, 'a a sbccr uproar and a violenrstrusglc with its anrnh€sis (PSr 132).

kt tbith and Knowledgc. Hegel inemorably calls rhe EnliShten-menl a hubub of vanity without a firm core (FK:56): h€ nowcxploresrhe emptincssofthis vanity in rhe Phenonenok'et, aryring rhar ir los€sallsubstrnce and inlegrity by failing to sce thc realsignificance oftheoud@k thar il altacks so conl€mpruously:

We havc therelbre to see how /r!/e irultrr and irrenrtr), behavesIn ils r.gulir3 attitudc ro that 'othcr' which it finds conlronrinSit. Pure insi8ht and antention which lalcs up a negalive attitodccatr only b€ sincc irs Nolion is all .s$nriahy and therc rsnothing oulsida it rhc nlgative of nseli As insiShr. lhcrcforc.it bccomcs the ncgalivc of pure invghl. bccomcs untrulh andunrcason. md. as i lrnlion. it becomcs thc negative ol-0ureintcntion. becomes a lic and insinccrity ol purpose.

(PS: -132 )

IlcScl arSucs that the shalk)wncss of rhc Lnlighrcnmcnr can be sccnin thc $!y in which rt\ supposcdly delasrlrinr critique of relig(,usconsciousness rcveals itscll us srperficial in rhc .yes of fanh.

Thus, against l}c chim rhat the object of farrh docs not cxinoDlsidc thc beliclcas own consciousEss. th. belicvcr can .cspond rhatlbr lion bcing 'ne* s'sk,m. lhis is wh.rt rt has always hckl. inltcwtng lhc dcny and jl\cll $ onc (PSr l1.l) Slcond. this tirsr chrrgcis in tcnsnD with rhe cla 'n thal rc l ig ious b. l rc l is I de,rept ion bn,ughr,rhour hy prir\rs and dcsn,ns: for if lh. obie.r ol linh is sonrerhing i/h.ls ereirc(i. how cin ir hc .licn ro n1): llos rlc dchrsr)n rnd dcccp-lnrr ro rnle t laec she( (( l rs( iousDess in rr \ l ru lh lus direcl ly lhc.lrttlrttr t'l ttnll- *hcr In rt\ oblcct pos\e\\c\ 11 ,r? rr//. sincc rtI rb l N nnr l lhd! r \ nn{| t r . (s r tscl f in x: i l )S . l l5 6). In lbcr. l lcSclchinN. thc l.nhlhr.nnrcrn s eonspmcy-thcon !'cw of rclg()n issin)pl) Inercdiblc ro rhr belrc\cr : rhc ider ol dclusron is quxc our oflhc que(tr ,n {PS: l - l ( , ) . Ihrk l . rhc hr lBhlcnnrcnl condemns l i r ih lbrworshippi'rg merc obtccrs likc picces ol sk'nc. bkrcks of wood orwrlijrs mrdc ol-br|:,rdi hul ol coursc linh d(rs nor relere lny suchmcrcly phl'sr.al things Fnunh. thc LnliahlcDmcnt arracks rhe ttrblc osn hrsr(trrcxl dmumcnr: hur lirlh has no such rel,ance on e\rcmal

154 155

THI D IAT ECII< OF sPIRII

.vidcnc€. and only a rcligious consciousness that has been conuntcdby thc Enlishtenment could think oth€rwisc (see PS: 338). l-inally, lh€EnliShtcnment rccus€s farth ofa foolish &sccticism and self-dcnyingdirEsard for material pmpedy. Bui faith casily shows the worldlinessof purc insight ro bc cmpty of real valuc. in holdin8 'a mcal or the

!

t

of6itrgs... to b€ e End in ilscll (PS: ll9). while alslcing hypcnrical: 'IPurc insisht] atrrffi as ! pure int€ntion the ncces-.ily ofrising above n ural cxistence. abovc acquisitiveness sboul thenl.ans ofe)(islencei only it linds il foolish and wronS lhat this cleva-lhn should be demonstnled h,./eedJ; in orher words. this pure insightb in tuth a deceprion. which feigns and dcmands an i,rcr cl.vation.bor d€clares thal ir is superfruous. f@lish. and €vcn wrong to he D

i.crreir about it. lo pul this clcvation inro a./!a/practice anl tunon-jiiak tlJ rdtft . . . Ir rs lhus rhat Enlishlcnmcnl lets iiselfbc understoodby faith (PS: ll9 -10).

Hegel then rurns ln)m an examindrion of the !flliShtcnmcnt sa.rilical position. to ns positive posilion. rgain as vicwcd thftugh thecycs offaith: lfallprcludicc lnd suprrstirnn h!!c been banishrd. the

$rcsrion ariscs, llhdt n!rt:' tthut i! th! xltth Lnlightlrircnt ln\ fofagatel in th.it \t!!.1:" IPS: -l4O). Hcrc dnec more Hegcl sugScsts thatfrilh crn righlly li'cl Lrnimprcssed. titr l;n, in sr ttr ds thc linlightcn-rncnt has a pla.c Lr (n dt rll. ir wiil h. rs thc cmply (n ot dcism.I hcr! rur&r' kr \hich no dclunnrnrtNnr. no prcdreurcs. cln bertlrihutcd- rPS: l-r(lr s..on . thc l lghrcntncnr rerums u\ lo rhel impl istrc.mpir icrsh, ' l ( )h\cn,ng R.Aor ' lhr( l - tbc I ln l 'ghlcnmcntdopts rhc la lue+yncnr, , l u l r ln\ . i rnd t |n rnslnrm.ntxl vr .w ol lhcworld lnd olhers .[r\r rs c!crythrnS is usclll to mrn. so mu is usclirlt(x), rn(l his locrti(nr rs k) n l. himscli x nrcnrher ol lhc 8()up. ofusc to lhc.ommnr So({ l tml s.nrccnblc kr r l l {PS: l { l } h nl l lh is.Hc8clchims. f . r rh s ' l l rL\pond $rrh drsgusl .

l )L:pir( rh, ' . l lLE( l . , , !u$. r14- In l , !hrenmenr \ .nc: rn im.

Fnant rolc in lbrer.g l i r th k, d$pcn i ts scl t 'und. lnandin8, andin prcvenr ing n l ionr h.e(rnrn8 do8nrxl i . imt ional ism: thus. shi leto u consciousncss wirh lirilh thc linliShtcnnrent merely appears io behostil!. iD facr ir helps hfln8 our the \!a! in which llith lrics tomcdinrc lnd rcllrc (i(xl rnd mun. rclelari(n and reason. inncr andourcr. nnd $ srop\ lir(h til,n bcconnn! (nc{dcd: Con{qucnlly, lthe

l

lHr DrartcTrc ot 5PrRrr

hnl ightenmcnl l rs n. l lhcr ah. 'n k) l inh. nor c in l i r lh,nsa\o* i r ' (PS

:i:l,l) At thc sdnrc trnrc. th. linl8hrcn|Icnr r\ nrsolli.rcnth drllcclicllnbour rts dr2 po$rtun vrs-rilis lirth. In tlrhng (r scc ho* much conrmon ground they sh.re. lhus. l i , r . rx rplc. $hr lc rh. Flnl 'ghtenmcnthelps kr rcmrnd l-ailh thrt (;r crnnot bc rlr.n n, rhc b(lteler. by r.lkingof ( ioJ !sr 'prqluct ofc.nscoLNncss . thc I ln l ightcnm.nt insistsonrikin! this ir r mcrcly nc8rli!c wa!, ls rl lr $crc lh.t.:by o\a'rttrri4tl -u i lh. s i thoul sccing lhr l th is is ! ,mcthing thnl l i i lh crn Incorpofutc.Likc$rse. lhe f .n l ightcnnrcnl sr !cs l i r i th l ionr the $ofshrp ol nrerc t in ' lcrhinSs ls lone. $ood. brcrdl : bul r l docs i ) $hi lc i lsc l l lh l rk j r rg ol lh ing\rn r I iurc ly nulcr i r l i \ l rc nr iurncr Alnt . rhc I :n l iShl .nnrcnt help\ r ! 'mi f (1l i , lh ot- lhc insiSni l lerncc ol hr \ lon(! l c! t lcncc lo rchgrous un( lcFnrndnrg. t rh i1. ! r rhc srnr{ r rnre rhrnhnB thrr \ ,ch . \ rdcn.c is lhc onl)

Sun s l i , r hcl lc l rhcr. un be l ' i r i l l ) - . l f ic l ,n l rShre,nir(nl sr \cs l iu lhlionr lfic htpocfl\\ .l rl\ ns..rtr'!n. shr.h In\oh c\ rhc r()l'en sacnticfol sd)ds in x {r ! rhrr , r c\ \ .n l r i l l \ nN.nrogl(s: hut rga,n- r1 ' rFn|ghlcnmcnl nktrc i r , r , q! ,e l l \ t ionr thr t \ . ln l .nrr . r \m. k) lhrnln ' !thl!|, a .tntl k) (onrrol rh. Jc',rc rnr pl.r!,r( hr' ,m\ \rgnrli(rnec

Noneth. l . ' rs. shr l . th. ln l re l rcnnrenr ern help l i i rh kr d. \c l (J linro r morc rophr\ t rcx[r l . . |groo\ \ l rndlrornl ihenee i t \ . l l i . r r \Ln.s\ l . rh is s i l l ror b. inrnrcr lxtc l \ . r f t r rcnt t ( , r i r lh r( \e l1: !nec r t $1lLInr l rx l ly sccnr k, lhL l i r rhrnl t l ,x t r l r ( l r IFhlcnmcnr hrs !n 'pL)( lcnn)\c( i r l l thc okl (cnrrnl ic '

l ,n l rshrennreirr . lh(r . I i ' ] r ls nr i r rcrnrble rulhontr_ otcr l i i thh. . rusc. i f lhe hc ,c\c, \ ( \ r r r rc r i ,un lhe\ f r ! mrncnl : $hr\ l i ln, !hr .n, i , . , , r l , :L ' fnrh rshcr l rs rr l| \ r r i r r . rn! the. l l . r l . , ' l lh \ ,LLr l ] l r r l \ r r rn( .1 ' \ .1\ . r l ' h.hr\r \ t r l t^ \ r r ( l \ r . t r l i \ fe F ro r . r ! l . r { r fL i , r rh. / , ( " r / , / r / un,r ! o lr r \ / , ,n, i , , , i , i , . ,1, . , r . , , , r r , / , r , ! |o l l ,Lr . r l \ Vr, f id l eon\er)u\ 't r f \ \srrhr i \ ' . , r rhrLr[ l \L, l \ ( 4\r i r r \ r r . r r l \ lo { i . \ l ro\ the\oul\hrrh1., , , r / r , ' , , / . tn, l \ i i r , , r r r r l \ \ lhrrrr \ i (n) . h! lhr \ rnr l \(n lhe t n( lo\ l . r r ln! . rn( i , ,1 \ . l l $r l r . rn( l ' . I - lu l l ih l )cr l I l r l .Fr r r ,nr . r or 1. t r r . rh( r ( { l r t ) l rh. l r | !h lcnml l l r \ r ! lh$ kr ( l t ,

. t r \ . r \ $Lrh rh! !h, , tLht l , , , . nt r . , t l r . r r , , r , , , / r , r r l . sct . t r l l r t r i\hr(h r \ t r ( ' . , i ' n r l th

(PS l l l {

156

rHt otat tc l tc or sPrRrr

]i) thc rclgious bclielcr. thrrcforc. rl inrlinlly uppLaB thal trhrlclhc enlaShtcncd consciousncss may clarm to havc k)und stislaction.it has lclt l:'ith brhind. Ilos$er. Hcgclobscn'cs, llith mty bc $rons

atrour this, lix rt mly pft^c hnrde. rhrn thc cnliShtcncd consciousncssthinks l() aehicv. srtrsliclion if il lcrvcs l-aith .slrun8cd rn lhts way.

|nd sticks mcrcly ro a lh's'$o.ldly phrbsophy ol nrulcn.llisnt and utrl

iilrirnrsm wc shlll scc $hcther F-nlightenmcnl can rcmain srlislicdithal yclnnnt ol rlf lroublcd Spinl which nt)urns olcr thc kiss of ilsqt i r i tunl wor ld lurks in thc hrctground (PS: l : l t ) ) .

' l Ic l i l ishrcnnrcnl . l lcgcl c lNinrs. is essent i r l ly spln bclwccntwo Lrnrpi . o i deis on thc onc hand rnd nlr lcr i r ls t l ) on thc olhcr-whcrc in lier li)r horh c0nrD lhc ccnlrdl crlc8drics ('l (nd m(l nrrllcr

| rc cqlnl l l rh\rrc l rnd cnrply. Under ly ing hoth. ho$l ia l hunur isnr. !nd r .ommihrenl lo lhc hrppin$\ (n nranl ind !s lhcfundanrorhl \ r luc t f i l t is . a coDnnimcnt n) ul i l r t r " Ihc l rscl i r l isthc obtLct In so lir r\ scll-con{c'ousnfs\ p(nclrrl.\ rl r d hr\ In n tht

.s/r,/i,rrf ol lfr trJ^kltun '.1.

irs cntovnrc t lrt\ /,.,,8t.,'!'//)

Thr l\. \,trk|\ xre r.(on.ilcLl ind hcr\cn h rrun\thnrcri lr) c.nhbck)$ ( l 's .15i1 l l .8. l hrs s lnrcd u\ . hdN.! t r . th i t \u(h oplrn smi i prcnutrrr lh. rh.rdo$ 15 cr\r In rht la l l ( r \ rn! t . |n ,n rh\ \cel( i1.

cnlr t ld hn) lo l . l i .cdonr rnd Ttnor ' . $h(r{ l i .8. l r ) l lc^ h, \ l m{rs

.nulyss ol th. l rcneh R.rolut ! t '

Ihe Frcnch Revolltion

As r i rNr e( nn(rrh rn( l s i r r tLJ_ rnr | l ' \ t ( r r l . l l rgcl s l rcxlnlct l , ,1 lhc

lreneh l { f \o lu lknr rs s l r ! ! rurcd nr i rnr l N.nlqLrc,) l l { ( \ , \ \err . xn( io l hrs f (ne. |1r .D () l l ic . ( lonrr rhL\ \ . . r r \ ( l rx, . s, \ . , , r l r t nunrcn{rstrr l r rc. l lnLl L)((r ion, l ( l , r . r r rc lerrr(( \ I ' , l {or , \ \ . r , In l i . ! . l s ( I !

.us! , r , , ' l rh. l rcfrh l { t \L, lur inr f l$shcr. ( ( l l ' l { \ l fs . f l i7. l ' l lt l t l l 5 l l ' \ \ l l0 l ' ) r l los. \ . r . Inrhe er\ . (n l lc lc l - \ r t rh\ , \ ,n rhc

R.\ , , lnrr , r rh. / ' r r r , , r , , , , / , , ! r . , t , \ In r : r ( r nol x \ r t r rn lc In l r r . r lo

rd.nr, l \ $hrr r \x.r l \ r l r \ , rb( \ , r R( i , \ \ . .o s Po\r t rnr thr t l letc l , \ . r t

|er/rnF hcr.. iorllha\ ro \ho$ rhrl n rs Rous\ertr \ Irt,rrt' or liccdonrth{t r \ ( (n l r r l ro lhr \ lc \ l

l )o in l rc ree( r t \ . I l .Scl \ r rgu lcnl r \ \uPlo\ . r t to rL\ l on x(r t ' ( l !e i , l Ror\ \ .n( \ .ontrrelrn! i r \nr . $htrc l r . f ( l t t rn In \otr . t \ r \

IHE D IA L€CTI< OF SPIRIT

prcscrvcd thmuSh lhe locial conlrad. as fre€dom ro do as one likes isexchanged fo. fft€dom ro live by laws ofone's own

'n6ting (ct Sulcr

l97l: 55. WoU.r 1998: 46, Frdnco 1999i I ll l4). T.Inul suppon forthis rcading com€s mainly from th. Phihtophtol Right, wher€ Hegcl'scriticbm of Rousseau dppears to be that jndividuals here rcmaincommined mer€ly lo thcir own inlerests, $ tial thc rcsult is a facrionalwar of all against all (see PR: !i29. p. 58; $258. p. 2?7). Howevcr.defendcrs of Roussau have Dornlcd oul thar rhis criricism is mis,guidcd: for n seems lo overl@k his crucial distincrion b€twecn rhcwill ol all' and rhe gcncral will', wh€.e the laner is iaken ro be thi,,rnore lirndamental lo a frce society. and ro cons;st in more rhan just rlcoll€ction ofindividual interests. (See Roussau 1994: Bk Il, Chap. l.p. 66. Ci Wokler l99E:46. 'He8el. following Fichr€ b€fore him. ncvcrnoticed thal Rousseau\ accounl of the Senenl will p€nained specili-c.lly to a collective will, .escmblinS [Hegel\] own notion ol thelllsm.ine mll.. r'j.thct than to a compound of paniculars which, !sRouss€au de*nbcd it. would have been mercly rhc will of all.'Ci a lso Franco 1999:9 l0. Ri ley l995:21 22.andTaylor 1975:. ]72.)Thus. even if H€gel is riSht lo scc thc Revolution and the Teror asarisinS oul of a kind of individualistic litnzy, it secms wronsheadcdto trace the roots of this individualism back ro Rousscou. when hisconception ofthc Scncral w,ll is sell-consiously and fundamentallycollcclavist (as llcScl himsclf acknowlcd8cs: scc tLr .sl6:12. p.2ll3t.

Morcoler. evcn if HeSel ca. bt dcf(nded on lhrs poinr, rhcrc 'salso .n Inlerpreratrve issuc herc. litr in rhe P/r.a,D.r./,,qr ar lcasl.

tlcgcl s cririque ofRousseru docs nol appcrr to li)cus on his supposldindi!idualisr conrracr.inanism (althou8h Hc8el :; .cmark concrminS'a Scneral $ i l l . rhc sr l l o l a l l Dt t^rhn'^ rs su(h {PS: 157) maypcrlup\ br tak.n ns r rclcrence to rt). Rarhcr. rt rny rnrplicn crincismol Rousscau is berng vorced (hc rs nor mcnrroncd by nrme). ir is thcopporite one: namcly lhrt it is Rousscuu s conceplron 0f th. Aero.llw// lhrl is problcmaue (thc lenn ///A.rr..rr, ilill rs used scv!.!lirnrc\. thouSh snncrrmcs Miller rranslatcs rr rs Bcncrul *ill . rnde,nrcr 'mcs ns unrvcNrl $r l l :sccPS: 157rnd 160). (h rhjs r€ading.lleScli objcctron ts lhdt bccausc eeordrng to Rous*nu every auron-otrurs individualcan trnnscend thc dislon()ns ot desiru. self-inrcrcsr.and lic,xl poriion. hc is lbcn gilcfl thc nghr tr) spcuk for all. a ir

158

i

THT O IAL E CTI< OF 'PIRIT

$pca$ that oothinS now stands in th€ way ofhis cbiln to disccm the

tcncral good: '[Elach. undivided from rhe whol€, alwrys does evcry-tbing. and whsl ,pp€ars .s don€ by the wholc is ihe dirccl andconscious decd of cach' (PS: 357). TskinS lhis to bc H€gel's objcc-tion. Judith shkla. puts Hegel s diagnosis oflhe problcm rais€d by theRcvolution as follows:

Each individual nor only decides for himselfwhat is ueful forhim bur also what is genemlly usetul. Each will regards irs€lfasa perfect cxprcssion ofrhc gencral will, which alone is valid. bulwhich cannot be found excepl in the p€rfect union ofall wills.That precludes compromise rnd srlbmission. Indeed, lhe twoseem identical now. For each one sp€aks for all. nor only forhimself To accept the dccision of anothcr pcrsof, is, rhus. toberray rhc gcncml will. of which onc's own is an inseparableand surcly pcrltcl pan. Unless all a8rce, there is no scneral willilbr cach onr rcslrds his own will as the conecr general will.since agreemcnt is impossiblc. galen the muhiplicity ofactual*ills, only anarchy is conccilablc. An'thing clsc is a limirationupon onc s wr l l .

(Shkl . r 1976:175 6)

On Shllar's .cading. IleSel app!.rrs to bc rrSuinS that Rouss€'ro sdocrpie of fredonr cncoumscd indivrduals lo hclicvc thar rhey couldcach spcak for th. Bcncrnl will and thus act on bth ll ofall. with thcdisanrous result thrr wh.n drllcrc;'jc and djsagrucmenr emcrScd. nocompfornisc $as possiblc. bcclusc no one was prcparcd lo acccpl lhalthey rnrghr be mrstalcn: Whrr rcDurns rs an ,nrrchy of wills. whichHc8cl jmputed ki Rotrss.ru-s tc(hnr8s (Shklar 1976 175. cl:.rlsoNusscr lqqs: 1961.

tlowclcr. oncc i8rrn. il llcgcl rs rcrd in this way, n lealcs histrcatrncnt ol th! Rcvolulion uopcrsuasive as a crilique of Rousscau.lbr il secms clc r thrt ltous\clu nclcr thouShl lh.l clch indiliduulcould .laim dircel and onfRlhlctrrrli. acccss lo thc genernl wrll.Indccd. rn B@k ll. ( hlptcr:l ol thc.\i,.u/ (,rrrrd./. Rousseau 8q:sour ofhis way to cnrph{srzc thnt cnch ofus as individuals must rccuplour la l l ib i l i ty in disccrnrng thc Scncrr l wi l l . $ lhul we can only knowwhal it is $hcn rhc drsl()ni(ns erc,rtld by ou. plnicular inlc.csls lrc

159

IHI DIALTCT C Of SP]f i I

'canccllcd our'ih.ough ugrccnr(nts xrn\cd nr b(rwccn us. Likewrse.In ll(!,k M-haprer I hr liltl1Nsl) chrnrs thal whcrc ! cirizcn hndshrn\clf rn a mrnorirl. rbrs \ho$\ lhot he srs mrsrakcn abour lhcgcncral wrll. and thlr !s ru.h hc \hukl ic(cpr rhc democraric decr-snnr. Thus. Rousseru hrmscll s.crN k, trrrn l8rrnsl rakinp seriouslythc idca lhal we could r !er bc rblc k ' st l ) lhar r \ tndiv idul ls. *e knoswhit is in thc publrc Interc\ t pnor n) rnl s( 'n ol pol i l icr l prdcss: l llhcre qcrc no ditl|ring rtrrrrc\ts. qc sould s(rncl) be a{rrc of rh.eommon intercsr. rh ich sorkl ne!cr Drcd rry dbsr lc lc i cveryrhins*ould run by i lsel l : rnd thcre woukl lo l ,nrSer hc rny st i l l in pol i l ic i(Rousscau 199: l : 6 i r n.) l r $ould thctc l i , rc sccnr nr isguidcd to c la j rlhr l Ronss.ru s docrr i r . o l thc gencrr l $ i l l nrerns thr ! i rd i !1du! lsshur ld scc thcDrscl \ . \ r : r r t )uhl . , , l nr ln! ( bchr l l o l i l l . dnd lhuslo. i \ { )o i lc Roussclu dirc.r l ! \ l l l lhc r f r r ( l \ or \ r ] ls thr l $rch.rd, f , tnnc ni{hl bnng.!bou

A d' t rd oprron rs 1o.tr ! ! t r lnr l l .gcl ohtr . r .d r , ) Rou\\$u \( loctnn. ol lhc geoer l l sr l l . not b. . r r \ r , r , r [dc r t ru) &r, tor ind,-\ (hnl\ k, chinr rt) {pcrl,tr rt\ bchrll .nrl rhu\ \er rhen*.hrs rt r.\o\$ergn. but bceru\. rt rnnd. rr n\) r/r/fu !r. !r io Indr\ rtlurl or \crol rndr\ i ( iuul \ eould chrnr l !Srrrnre! Inr rhcI N]rrrr . t t rurhonr! orletroos. For the prohlcnr notr rs ho$ \ueh InrI \ r ( lur l \ .nn elainr t ( )\pc! l l -or th. gencful $r l l . shcr orhea r) ' \ee rhctrr xs. .pr .$nrr f ,etrrercly prr l r .u l r r r r l$.sts r( l nor thc unr\c^r l $r l l : ( )n rht dnrhrnd. Jrhe go\cmmcnt l . \e lu l l . \ r l l ( ) thcr In{ t r \ ( iur l \ t ronr r ts rcr . rndon lh. oth$ hand. i t thcrcbv.( str lu ler r ts.Ll i go!(r i i rncnt thxr is rsf . . r l i . \ ! l l . !n( l \ ) str fds ( ' |B\cd rr) lhc ! f r r d sr l $ r l l : r ( r r \equcnt l r - .r r r \ rb!rur. l ! Inrpo\{hl . t r r i r ro. \hrbrt r t \cI r \ nn!rhrrg ct \ehrr r / , r r ( , r -1 l ,S l6 l r ) | | | \ . in j t I r \ r f rdn! . t t . ! . \ . r l rqu! , (nla.Lr\ \ . r ! r \ 1r .n h. L i i )c\ j r , i l \ht \ \ l jL, \ l r t r j r lh( t ) jn lot \ r f$ol lhf

Indr\rr lur l - r r ro 'h l r , r \ \ r rhrr rh. r , f . . r t r . lx r r r , , rctr(s.nr rh.! (n.r . r l \1 l l xrd rhu. dt f r . . l . ! r r r r r . t rL | r , r r . r l t r \ \ f r . r \ lhe rndr\r lur l f ,ur r l \ . , \ \ \ . , ! rh, , r r Ixr . , , , rhr t r r \ r . . r f l | |Lrr r nreret \r rk lL\r t l ! . rLr \ r . b. t . , . . ,n,1 n ' r , j r ( \ r \ r . rnn \L( l r , ,1\ .nhn^\ r r i ( |l l r i r l r r r , rn l ( )N.1 l . l r . lhu\ t (n l lL! ! l th. t \ f t 'h leni t ) t ho$ lhc qcocinl$r l l f . t t r r r lc on I { l . r .nnrnrr . t ( t r rn r \ l , t r r t . rn\nnn r( , xsI in! $hcrhrrlcgrtrDrt . ntrrh(tr , r \ ern bc f \ f , ( , \c l l r r r l l l lo\ ! rn rhc !cn. l\L l l dI .cr rh. r l r ,on\ ofrh. \ r . , r ( | Lr L\ xt$i \ \ r r . , t . r tc\h-rnd-htutr l

160

l

THf OIALTCIIC O' 'PIRIT

ntdrlidu.l: *ho musr act .nd dcc c lartcrs o! .onrnron Inlcrcsr') )Agrrn. houc\cr. rt is .rguablc lhrt th,r cnrr.rstrr rr unli!rr k) Rous\e.u:

t(tr hc rncs hnrd to o\.rcomc thr\ pn)hldn. by' c\phrnrn8. li'r cxanrplc.

loq it r\ rhrt prniculnr krnd\ ol dcm)errtrc pn)c.durc catr and should

tr takrn hy.rti/cns as dctenninrng th. g.ncrul srll. so thal the Scntral*r l l hrs r (ontcnr th l r nrsr h. lee.pred hy. l l lnnd.!n l .Si l r rnalely be

&lcd ul lon. l l .gcl does nol cngrg. $r lh lhtsc su88cstnns. so as.

. r i lk lLrc thr \ kr , ls t rnch.r i t rb lc rd r l l - lnund.( i .A ti,rtrlh oplknr is lo rrglc rhrl llc8cL blxnr.d Rousscau inr thc

Tcrror hccr i lsc ol lhc krnd. l .onrr i lLr l (nrr l nr turrgcrncnls Rousscru

.uppoaf( I . t r , prr l ! (uhr hrs hosl i l i ly lo lhe rdel | o l polr l r . r l .cPrcscn-

t lntrr. nr^l limtrNlt rnd ti)r..llily erfruss((l rn ln\)k lll ol fr.gr 'n t t , tnd s(^.r . rgnl) er i ior bt rc|rcscr lcd. l i , r tht srm.

tr lsor lhrr r r e!rn(n h. l r ! rNlcrcd: i r . ( s i \ rs cssctr l r r l l \ n rhe gcncr! l

wi l l . ud rhc $r1l r rDnol bc renrc\ . r r .d: r r rs l l \e l l . ! r r ,s \oDrclhrng

cl$. th.r( , \ no orhcr po\{b, l ' r \ lh. l {of lc ' d.Pur,rs r t . nol

' lsrlprcslrnlxr \ rs. l herc lilr(. ,rt.Jn lhe) be. hur !,. on1\ rl\ rgcnls: lhc\

c lnnot r ! r l . ( l . l i t , \ . t j . . rnons \n\ l . f \ rhrr lhr | .d[ ' lc In lcr \onh{s nor rr l r t ied h \ i r t l r l rs fot J t rs lR({r , . . ru l ( )L) l l t l l l l . (h! t .

f5. p l : r l N,r \ - n thc I 'hot ,"nr"h,r \ l l (S! l nr l le\ r nunrb.r o l '

r . lcrcn(e\ to rhr\ Roussc.u, ,xn k l .n rhr l thc e(nclr sLl l . rnnot hc

nnr. \cnr( t l . \ t r l rnS lhrr Inr rh. R.\olut l i r r r r . \ "L

r t rL ! { t r f r r l srLl '' rs n( ' r lhc rnrt l ) lh.rs ln or r Nr l l shreh torNr:r \ in.rLcnl r \ \enr. ( i

$\er l h! r ref .c\er i rnt i \ . l l )s: l5r ' ) . rnr l rhJl \ . l l : ( , ! r \cn\sn$s

ldo(\ r ( ' r l lqr , l \c l l hc rhtr l . (1 , \ , r or r . r l r l ) l ) ) h(rr ! , ( f , i ' \ ,?, / , " In

l r { nt l r is i , r ( l L,r i \ . r \ r l r t r l r .n ( lS: r5t)) . Nl , !e( \ ( r . , , , lh. / ' r r l , , \

' t t / | t , l I t tht . l l . ! .1 g( ' . \ (n,r , i l hr : sr \ l t ) ( le lcrr l r l i f l fg l r r i r . r (y () l '

r ( t rc\(r lxrrr i $ r lhr r rh. \ r r rc. ,n( l1Lr rq.rrr I r f . r d.rr i r i f r . t r \ i \cc l ' l {

l \ r l r \ I I l ) t . i . lh r0)\ t . rh. l ( \ \ . shr l . l l . ! . n ' , t \ h. , f b. ! \ r , l r rn In rnr ln!

too".ru r . h! l , t \ r , l . r , ' rh. f 'Lt f , l l . (n r . f r . \ (nr . r r , ' ,n. r ,n l \ l ) r l . h.

nr\ hJ\( rh( !1, ! I r r I . , r , , I f r j \ , r (n j r , ' ,c f r f \u l r l r \c \ r ,L, . roI f \ fh\ .d I

.cntrr l nLe In rh. R.\ , ,Lurrn, . , , t r j r r \ . , ,L l i l \ ! r rn, rh. l f ror ' l l .gel

| | l ln(r r r r . \ th^ ( ' t t . \ , r rnr b. i ( \ I ' r e(nl(( l r r ( [ ( ' l l r (cdonr rhrr

rpn(r^ r , , hr \ ( l i l r le n, ( lo $ r lh R,rr \ . .xu- \ , rhrr on.e rsrrn Ro(r \ \ t .uF rr tu ih l ! lcs\ \ rgNri .n.r hcr{ thrn , ' r r . , | | r r t r r l l } { r f fN\cd T{r rcc

ehi t t l i r \ . t ! , ( !prru or l l t f ( l t rn , \ . , r L\ nt( f*rr \ l i^r ro lo, , l r t shr l

I

THE DIAL€CTIC Of SPIR' I

Hegel says aboui rhe Revolution in lhe Inlroducrion to his Phik'lopht.y' Riarr, where Rousseau is not m€ntioned (cl also PH: 442 3/Pw:2r0 l2) .

Hegel s .eferenc€ lo the Revolution occu6 here as pa.t of hisgeneral discussion ofrhe will. duringwhich he lries to resolve aiensionin our conceplion oflhe willing subject. On the one hand. he argues.we see rhc subjcct as 6nite and panicularized : that is. in acling thesubject d@s onc lhing ralher lhan anolher (chooses rcd paint over

Sreen painl, chNses to become a philosopher ralher than a slatesman).and hence is delermjnate and dill-erentiated from other subjectsthrough its rclions and lile-choiccs. On lhc olher hand. he argucs. wcalso scc rhc subjccl !s infinitc and unilcrsal'. in $ far as nothingprevenls the subjecl tiorn actinS diffcrently. fiom picking anothercourse ol aclion (l ,,r/z/ have chosen green painl. and I ."r/../ havechosen 10 be a srirtesman). Now. the rension anses. because it may

4pcar 1o the subject thrt il-in l-acl il docs choose lo do A ralher thanU, thcn this will comp.omisc ils unilcrsdlily . bccrusc this choicc willrule out various options for il (once I hrve decided lo become rpbilosopher. hecohing a slaleenan sill be extremel) difiiculi if notimpossible for me). As a result. Hescl elnrrns, lhe s bjecr may betcmplcd to lhink il would bc bcller kr rcftuin fionr nuking nny choiccsat all. and lo .cl in such x wdy {s lo kc.p dll otlions opcn i bul. hcpoints out. th is wi l l a lso.xLludc ccn. in opl idrs. R. lher. f {egel r rgues.thc lvay to olercome this tcnsion is lor lhc sublccr lo rdentrly itsellwi lh i ts choiccs. n) that e\en lhough opl i l )n A rules out opt ion I l . th isdocs not Nppcrr to thc $lr cct rs rny ! )d of l imi t r t i (nr , bccrusc nr Ai l srrs r rcf lc. t ion of i ts own essent i r l naturc, whi .h i t docs not see inIl As llegel ptrl: rr rtr h\ frtriJrcd rcnninol(r!!: Frccdonr rs kr willuncthrng dclernrnr le. ycl l ( ) hc s i th onlrc l l J l . i !k ' r l rn Ih is deler-minrey and lo retuf l r orec nrorc lo lhe uni ! . rsxl ( l 'R: \72. p.-11). l lc

fu ls lhc sxnrc poinl l .ss l i 'nr . l ly bul r l greNlcr lcn8lh rs fo l lows:

\I

THE DIALTCJIC OT 5PIRIT

yet il does not wish to renouncc the totality which rl intends-

Such a disposition tccnfll is dead, even if its aspimrion is ro

be beautiful. lJfh()ever lspires to great things . says Coethe.'must be able to limit himsell' Only by making .esoluhons can

$e humm being cnl.i acluality. however painful the process

may bci for incrtia would rather nol emerge jiom that inward

brooding in which it resenes d universal possibilrty for itsclf

But possibilily rs nol yel actualjly. The will which is surc of

itsclfdoes nol lherelb.c losc itself in what ( delenn'DeslPRr I l3Z. p. . {7)

As his rcl-erenccs to inward brooding and thc nspiralion lo be

beauliful indicrtc. l{egel was herc in part cn8lging with a Romantic

longing fo! lhc wholc mrn'. who h.s nol become 'limiled by lhe

increased specir|l7ali(in ofmodem exincnce: bul (rs his laler discus

lion ollhc beaulilul nNl in the P,.rdrk,!,1)st will show) Ior tlcgcl.

lh is lonsing was nr isplaced..s hc bel icvcd lh l l only wi th some

limitilbn do.s the individudl llke on a mcininslul lilc As hc puc

$is poinl in thc l,gn: Man. il he wishcs kr be ac$rl. musl be-there'

lndrhen. and b lhis cnd he musl sct ! limil l() himscll Pcople who .rc

loo fastidious lowa.ds the linile nevcr rcreh aclurlily, but linger lon in

rbst .adion. rnd lhcir l ighl d ies aw.y (Fl . : "s922.

p l :16) {For lnnhcr

discussion. see Sl.rn l9ltq )Now. H.gcl s conrnrcnls rbolr thc ltcnch Rcvolulion corue

bclitrc he has rcrchcd this rcs)luliolr oflhc lcnsi(tr bciwccn unile&

sal i ty and Fnreular i ly i rarh$. hc l rcr ls lhe l_rcn.h Rclolutr)n as

Bradign[ l ic o l ]usl lhc l , ,x l or ' t )vcFrcl ined scnsibi l ry that sccs

rnything plr l rcuha or 'd.r{nr inr lc rs u hnr i t . l i (D on r ls i iccdom.

rnd rs $rrcthing l iorrr $hrch r l r l rould stcp br.k :

( )n l t ,n. aVr l / o l lhc s i l l is ( lc l incd here ndnrely lh lsrrn)/r / t '

n l l ih i t i^ o l dh\ t td l t tkr l iom . !cry dclcminrtr i )n in which I

l ind nlys. l for rh ich I hr \c po{t .d in mysel l : ih. f l ighl l iom

c!cry .onlcnt as r l rnr i l r l ron l l th. \ ! i l l dclennir .s nsel l - in th 's

way . . . lhis is ,.,J..drr, riccLlonr or the lieedonr ol rhe undcr

srlnding. This is lhc liccrlou ol lhc void. which rs raised to the

slrrus ofan actull \hunc rDd lassioo lf it rcmains purelv theo-

rcr ieal . n hccomcs i r lhc rc l ig i (nr \ realm lhc l l indu l inr l ic isnt of

A $l l thul re!) [cs on n()rhrn8 i \ nol rn aelur l wi l l i the chrr-rcrcr lcss nr!n cnn ncvcrrcsolvconrnl th ins lhe rcrson tc,?n4ln. such indecisrnr mty llso lic in rD ovc. rcined sensibilitv$h1ch knows lhal . in dci$nr1nlng somelhing, i t eniers lhe realmol l in i ludc.

'mpoin! a l imir on i lsc l l rnd rel inquishrng in l lnr ly:

162 161

l f ra oraLrcrrc oF tprRrT

purc conlcmplalionr but ifil rums ro lcluality, ir bccorncs in thcrcalm ofbo'h polilics and rcli8ion ihe lin0trcism ofdesrruction.dcmolishinE thc whole ex;sting s()ci!l ordcr. climinaring alt

'nd'vrduals rc8rrdcd as suspeci by a grlen ordcr. lnd annihalnr-

Ing any orSrn'/lI'on which allemprs to nsc up ancw. only indestroyrnS vmdhrng does rhis ncSarivc willhuvcr fcclints ofilsown c\islcnec l/)dr(lr). h may well bcl'!'!c rhat it wills somepositi\c cond(x)n. for instance thc cobdrt|i)n ofunivc6al equal-ny dr ol unr l r r$ l rc l i fk)us la l i . bur i r d(E{ nor in l i rct $ i l l th(posi l i !c rcnnl l ly o l thrs condi t ion. l ( i r lh is r l onec !r !er r isc lo\onic l in{ l o l onlcr , I pdrrrcular izrr ion both dl r rs l r lu l ions rnd ofindi ! idL( l ls i bul r l rs prcciscly th()u8h thc n nrhihl i (nr o l panic-uhrjly and ol obt.ctivc dclcrurinatn)n lhat lhc scll coDsciousnesso! lhrs ncgrlrrc liccdonr fiise\. Thus. *hrrcvcr surh liccdonrb( l ic les l ,k,r l rhxr i r $r lh can rn rr le l l l r , 1r(r l hc no nrcrcthan nn rhstfu.r rcprcscnklron Ili,^r,/r,rl. and

'ts lcrualiz

t(nr can onl) I'c rhc lun ofdcsrructirni . ll)urnr8l rhc Reignol lcro n th. l rcn.h Rc\olut ioD . l l dr l l i r .n.cs or mlenrslnd rurlr)fi1) scrc {'tlx)srd rr) b. c!n..ll.d our ldr^r.r,h(?].Th's wl \ | t rnrc ol t rcmblng and qulkrng rnd ot-rnr( tcf tncetosaftls (\(rythrng plnrcuhr. litr lirnrricrsnr srlls or y $hntjJxbstruct, nor whrl r\ rrlicuhrcd. so th r $lc .!cr dir'lerencescnlcrge. il fin(ls lhcn incomprtiblc $rth its own indctrnninac!rnd .nreels Ihcnr l r .h/ \n.dln Thrs rs \ rh! rh! p|onlc. dur inglhc |r.nch Rrvol rnr. dc\rrolcd onee m!! rhc

'tr\l ulrons lhe!

h!( l rhcnrs( l \e: r rutc(1. hecrusc rJ l rDn ur \ ! ,c In(onrtr t ib l . 'Nth r l ' ( rh l r re ' 'c l l -eonscrousn.ss ot r l tur l r r \

t l )R \ i rn( l \ i / . t f r r { 9 l

Thl\ hncl (lb(u*r a ntc I'hiL)\t' ^

,/ /li(r/ \ h.lplul_ hc(ru:. ll\ l ros\ Nh.r l i , r l l .s . l ! i rdcr l rcs thc nr isr . l .n (r , r l ( r , r o, !on\ !khnr\ :r l lh. t rnr . or l rcn.h R.rolut i {nr . in ! sry rhxr Intoh.r no rc lcr lncck) Rousscxu: nl | rnel ! . rhr l thrs s landpoirr hol(k thr l th. sLrbleer is t ieconl ! r l r l r \ in s $t{ tc i ' {hrch al l pr rcu[nty (such l |s soeral ro lcs,c lxs\e\ . r , r t l eonsrrrut lonr l l i rnet ions) is rbol ishcd. shelus lar l t .8. lth. pn)fcr (on.ct l r f o!- f tccdom ! l l ( )us thr t thf suhtcel crn l i !c $ h! lrht \ r \ rn&rur. \ \ \ r r l iour bcrnS l rnr t lcd or drnrrr \hc(, r \ . .ordnr! i , ,

TNE OiAIECTIC OF SPIRII

ttegcl. r suhiecl m.y llnd lhal its tlacc wilhrn society is very dintrcnt

fron thosc ol other subjccls. without lhcrcby lteling thal il is rendcrcd

'uniitc . in so lirr as lhc subrecl c n hc ,.i ri(, rn this dc|crmift|cy'(ci olso PR: 1207. pp. 218 9). Thu\, whilc Rousseau opposcd th€ idea

of plnical rcprcseniation dl lhe lcSisltrrtlc leYcl bccaus€ he slw il ns

invol!rng ltn unrccepmble irrnrlir of !rcrcrgnty from lhe pcoplc kr

thcir rcpr!'scntllivcs. on Hegcl s r.cotrnl thrs opposition has a \ery d'l'

fcrunl sNrcc. Fo. H.8cl. il com.r lionr lhc unwillingness ol individu-

ds r(' rolcrrl. any pani.uhn/rl,on .lnd hco.c nny idenriticalior wrlh

thc krnd ofconcrete sociNl stnrelurc\ and rllltrcntranon that repr.scn-

l0 l lvc !orcmmrnl rn!olvcs.As w. shnll now sc. in nlorc dclurl by boking at thr /'r.r,_

m.{, / , , r i r . l lc8cl $rnls l ( , l fuc. hr tk thc hnrtrcrsnr ' of lhc ' lerror ()

jusl this concctlnn of unr!er\rl(r_ . lhxt lrclls prnrcularily as ntnc'

thinS rhc {rhtr'cl must cs(nc or o!.r(oDrc. lrrsr ol all. lltgcl rgL,c\.I cor$oousncss nrovcs f(nD \cotr8 ils.lfs ! dcsiritrg subjecr. r(J sLcrn8

j nsett u ' . , \ r l lnF 'uhlc. l . i \ r l rhxnd,,n. lhe rdc, '1, ' !v o i urrhl \ nr

hvu$ ,'f rl|nctrm. of irL(.j'rn hJ'(,| ,{r lhc *rll. rhu. r{rh(r thJn

rishrn! t() srlNt,y ns pani.ulrr dc\tr$. thc indrr,'jurl nos selt thcnl

| l idc rnd \ .es i {sel f rs lhc un^fa. l Suhicer ' (PS: 156)

Ile oblcel rnd th. ltrrnerrr i,ll ,/r/.t,r ( hx\. hcrc lon rlre

nrt inrn8 ol ! r r^. \h ich $rs lhc f rc( l ic i rc of 111 rer l h l r r r f l

conse(,u\ncss do$ rror h.gin i ls nucrrretr t in thc obi .ct rs i l

lhr i *crc lnnclhrng dr, , I r i ' f r $hreh 1r r i rs l h ls kr rcturD r t l ( !

r lsc l l l on thc conlrnD. lh( , )h leel r \ ior n.onscrnr{r .ss 1l \c l l .

lhc Jnl i lhesi ' r , {n\r : . rh.retur. . ! ) l . l } i f r l ' . d i l l t renec

h.r \ .cn rhe , , , / , r r / ra, r r , l r |c n, , { , ! , cor\e(tsne\\ ' hur rht

1n( lnk[ le, [* i {^n. . . Lr \ . l l , \ ( l r reer l \ In rr \ o\n c) . \ rhr l

shr(h h.( l onl \ '11. . , , , / , / , / r ,

o l rn i r ' lht \ r \ . r r r \ un' \ . r \ r l

(PSr l i7 r i )

(h. . r l lhrnks ol r lsc I i , \ '1,n1\(r \1 l rn lh i \ t ! l ly . l lcSel t r rgu.s. thc

Indr!xnur l wi l l nc lorrg$ i . f . t l lhr l l r rc ly is prcper ly s lucturc( i

tnnnr( l (LI lc idn \ )e i r l r r { r ts. l i ! r l rL lccls Nny kind ot p! t l 'cul ' r r -

rmlron ol lh is son. Nhr.h l r ( . r l \ rh. l rh lc. t rs dcl lncd or l l \cr l h! i r \

t l { ( . r t r lhc ! )e i r l ( t r ( lcr . r r rhc, . L l r I r f l r lhc \ubiecr 1s !b]e rr) nst

164 r65

IF lE DIALICTIC OF sPIRII

above this kind of determinrtion. lnd adopi a purely unilcrsal nand

each individual consciousness raises itsell our of ils allonedsphere. no longer Ilnds its csscncc and ils work jn this panicuhrsphc.c. but Srasps ilselfas the MrD, ofwill. grasps all spheresas rbc csscncc ofrhis will. and therefo.e crn only re.lize irsel{in a rork which is rhe wo.k of the wholc. In this absoluretieedo'n. thereforc. lll social groups or clr\ses which irc thespinlu.l spheres lnlo rhich lhc wholc is rrliculated .tre {bolishcdi lhc indi!idual consciorsncss th.t belonged to.iny suchsnhcrc. rnd wi l l .d and l l l l i l led i lsc l l in i t . h is pnr ande i ts l i rn ilalioni its purpos. is lhe general purposc. its hngnaS. unrvcrsallaw. i ls sork lhc uni \crsr l work

(PS: 157)

Now. lle8cl r.gucs hcr.. tusr ds hc docs lalcr in rhc /,rir,vfrNo/ Risrl. that rhis coneeption ofthc uni!ersal subleel is pkrbl.matic,bccrusc i l seems to hale no ruon lor 'part icular i /atron: tu n, indsthl t qur subjcct , i t is unwi l l ing k, to lcrarc any d. ternlratc net ion. o.constilulion. or rolc wirhin rhc starc. as lhis sccms k) limit its lieedonllu lhdr nl . (Lf In rhu ( l .nr ' f l , ' l / , r4r . t ,urJ l r r ) u. ,u l . l l r r \ ( ih(

s ignr i icancc. l a \pcei l ic tcbon. l i t l r i t t lould ccasc lo bc in rruth uDi-vcrsll sclirconscn'!\ncss . Lrnircrs.l irc.donr. rhcreforc. crn pftrduce nci thcr r posi t i !c sork nor r decd: lhcrc is l . l i l i t r r r or l ! , { ,Udl / t |tucl i (nr : i l is nrcrc ly thc r , r 'dJ ( lenrucl ion (PS: l5t))

^r thr 'srnre l rmc.

Ihc subiccr loscs. l l R\ l )c.r i , r the nrerc n i \ i i lu. l i t \ or 'orhers.rsfrnic! lur scl \c\ $ i lh lhcj f o$n rr !x i in l r le\s h\cs. Nn( l !J s l r t lc : i I t r rlhc T.ror 'Th( n, lc sork r fd dccd ol t r f i tc6r l l iccdonr rs th.r . lnre, tudl / , . N d.r l l r r , r i \ l i reh hr\ fo lnn.r \ igni l i ! r iec (r l i l l rng. l i ) r $h! t, \ regdrcd I i . . . rhe ]nr l i \ rdLr! l l r \ lhc cnrtq l ro int o l thc nh$lurclv r icc\c l l l I r rs rhu! rh. (okt fsr rn( l r rerrcn ol r l l dcxrhs. wi th no n1(re r i8nLl i tnfce lhxn cut l in! o l l r hcr( l ( ) l crbf ' r8c or $r l los i rg I nrour l r tn lo l $ c i (PS: - lo l r ) . l lonc\ . r . rh(rc rr po{cr quickl} f ind rhnt rhecr l r^nr s. . lhenr r \ |n) i t rn8 thcir l rc.doni b) r r lcntpt inS to Imposc(nnen)t l dfn)ci . l (n,crurcufon thcnr ' Ihc!o!cnnnent, which wi l lsa d c\c.utes i ls $r l l i i { 'n ' t |8 le fo int . r r r lc s ln lc l rme wrlk lnde\eeures r s| tc i l ic ot t let t . l " r t l t t r r l Nnd N.t ! ! r ' (PS: .160r: thcsc

nftr\ thcrelbre appear ro represent me.cly t_!clionalintcrcsls, whilc thct!l.r* ihcmselves suspccr everyonc ofplotting agrinsr thcm. Oul oftheL, ol dc.th thll thc fcror bnngs. indiliduals eventually come to

lnnr wilh a lcss onc-sided sell:conception. in which they now accept

l.t lhc slltr may require them ro occupy speci6c roles wilh it: 'Thcsc|dividuals who hale fell the liar of dcarh. of thei. rbsolutc masler.

aaain suhmit lo neSalion and dininclncss, anangc thcmselles in* vurk)us sphcrcs. and .clum 10 nn {poaioned and lmiled lask.bl thcrcby lo Ihe; subshnl ia l rcal i ly (PS: 16l) However. Hegel

ld\ lhr t {hr \ r ( j '4rr .on ol ' l ' ( \ \ ra l . rder r ' n. Incrc r . r , ra, I i 'lir.l wcnt bcli,re: li)r now the consciousress of frccdom lhrl under

tanncd thc Frcnch Rc\olut ior r .kcs a ncw fom. in rhc,r , /d/ Spir i l '

lt8 !6.t).'fhus. rs llyttolilc puls ir. Ilegel rnlerprers lhe Tetror in the

ln3ul 'Sc of h is dir lcct ic l l phr losophy ( l lyppol j re 1974] , l5 l t ) . tbr

ll'cl, thc lcnor poses u <lcep and hlghly $gniricinr problenr. {hich

I dul oncc lhe Ino(lcm rndividual hrs discovcrcd lhrl hc hns lhis

t !*cr rd g ' !c hinrscl l ur i \crs! l i ry, rhr l is . l ( ) cxr inguish al l panicu-

bly. $ l l dcl$minacy (PR \52. t . l l i ) . how can lh i \ be prelented

iom makrng rhc indilidull fccl rlicnuled ltom all thc nructurcs

I t nr tc ut lhc s la lc rnd $crcry ( i ls $c 'a l rc les. i ls .onsl i ln l i ( )n. llnt ions. i ts rcpfc\cnt l t r !c nrech.nisnrs, i ls d.c ison nrrkrng p(ts

rdurc\) 'As l lcgcl s drs.ussidr of lhc l icnch R$olul i (nr rhoss. hc|l|r i lh t on.t lhi\ xl|.nrtion h$ o.curcd. thcn rnrruhy lbllows.|lh|tln! rlN rnxr.hl ol (lirc(t dcnnrrucy. r'hich In llcscl s pr.scn'

l rn reenrs 1, , hx\c i ls ! t r rcc nol In t t (usseruir t qr l lns ahout th.Li(cr o l in(rcrgf l ! . hur i , t rh( ut$i l l i tgncss or nrd$n i rd i \n luNlsIr n l . t r t l ly thcr\c l \c\ $rr ] r nf t pxr l r . rhr .onni lucrcy. \ rh ich isiqntr(( l r l rctre\ . i , r r l r tnrr l \ tnr . r r r f r xrc t { ) h. \c lhcrr t .ofcr consrr-:n.xr l srrn, l i0r . r ( )n rhc orhcr hrf i . he sccs lhnr prcvurs wrys ol

rr{rrhr! thc rndi \ r ( lurL l , ) thcrr \ ,crr l fosi l ion urc 'b

lonf$ lppl ' . '

lo, ' t r r .c

thc scl l hrs re. , , ! r i le( l , r \ $nr 'c, l ! ibr rcf l . ' . t r \e s.prrr l idr

hi t {n lhc $l l qur f rn ieul . r rnt l lhr scl l qu. unscrsr l . I l .gcl nccds

l .bo$ ho\ l lc r .nelr i \ . r i r r lc | r subrcct .u bc rcconci lcd lo -prnrc-

| | i t ) . hy sh^\rn! h({ ! r r rh. nrx lcrn $or ld. lhcsc rolcs ! r ( lh l lutrrN trecd n(,1 .o,r t r ( r r r \ . thc $rbtccl r n(rng ser\e ol uni ! . rthr rn, l equi I l \ l lc ! ( l \cr \ . r r ro.er l r /c lh ls tn, i . . l r t lhe

167

I

I'hilt)r)drr ol Risht. \<t whrch rhis discussion in the Ph.raDtoalos.ris dergned to lerd u\. !1a Hegel s l-unhc. analyis ol the caregories ol!n i !crs. l . p.nicular. rnd Indi ! rdual in the 1-.{r , . Hc r inrs lo show thrtcnsl(rns. hws, rnd $cidl inni tu l ions arc not s imply connrr ints. butNrc cn!hlnrg condilxlns ior humrn liccdom. bccrusc thcv both p(,!idcncccs$ry rcsourccs lbr humrn de\clopment, rnd enablc us to idcnlil-\and obkin lanou\ cnds ind gonls wc can sel ourtelvcs. (For lirrthcrdiscllssnD ol ho$ rhrs protecr rs mcant to $otl ln tl\. PhiL'u)t r olR,.qr l . s.c HrrdrnrD l9t) .1: l .1 l 7 l rnd K. R. $esrphNl l99lb i

Spirit That lr Certain Of ltselt: Morality

Ar lhc h$n or ' l legcl s r fu l \s i \ or ' thc Fr l ich Rc!ol ! r id ' . rs $e hr!cs.ctr . rs r . f l i { tur o l lh. (n. ' i r lc(h.s!n rh. .on.cplnnr ol l i rer lodli t cfrhodr.d. {h ich rcqrrrcd rh. $rbtc. l r { ) . \ t i f !urnr r l l pxnr.ulrnly '( r l1 d. lcnninr lc d.s i r .s. t r . i ls . rnd s) . i r l nt .s) in ord.r l (J N.hr. ! .'unr\chr l i r ) ; th is uni \ehrL l iccdonr ' . l lcgel r rgucd. c!n f rcduc.nc,rhcr r Nsj l i \e {ork nor I dccd ( l 's : . l5r)) . l legelr(N l r ics lo sho*hos r rNi lar d ' , j -s i ( lc( l i rs: 1, . : hch, i ( l rhc erh,er l \ r \ l .nrs ol K r lrnd |i.hl.. whR on rh.rr r..ouDt ol licL'doDr. thc rulononFus mnlsubiccl who rcts oul ofdLrr ! rs s. t . f r r i ionr lhc n. lutul subi .c l Nhorcls out ofdcsircs lnd Inel inal ions: hc . .gucs on.c rgNrn thrt lh is sclsup rn ar l r rhcsrs bel{cen lhc rndr} idua .nd concrelc acl i (nN. su.h rhrrlhe \uhiccr rs le l l lcc l , r8 rhr l i r nr lh l be be\ l l iorn r nrml fehfeclr !c rJ hc gr\ . t rn l r ! ing t r , ( lo rn\ , rh i r ' ! . xs lh$. 1s

' lh ing l ic err ( | )

r ) r . l ! . l i l . t r ! rc durr_ ( l lc !c l l i rn io is l \ : r$ r c l ( ,sr re l r l i i r r hercbctu.cn fhr lonJdr\ In ( icm.nl r r , l to l rL.x l dcnts i r I . r r t r .c.oh\cr\ rng ol lh. ( ler t ' l lhc fur( \ i l l lh.r l Nirh lhc ( i .nnrrs. l r t lrenr.r fcr l l r rn!uLl l l r (Lr \ : rLr l l l i ( l re i i (h\L\h.(11,, Iur r l In l ( ) t r re l r .c '( l , l l : .1.1.1, I , \ \ : l l l ) ) l legel r , ,n\ r ( ) \ l ,o\ h( \ r rhrs conecttron oll ic . r lorr inr l rur l roodf.ss c,nlDirs Ihf K, t rn, i$ l i ) | (hrr l rs l r (

t ' . lLr f . . t rh i .h , i r \ | | , rgoi :hrs s l ' r | . | rL\ b.r$f . f rh. nr l rHl ind l l ' r Inorr lor lcr . n. inr lknr x r( l ( I t \ . , r r r l hr f | r in.ss r f ( t nrnlLrt . In x $rt t r lnrul l r f le l r lcrd\ r . r i , ( , )hcren(e

THE O ALECTIC OF 5P RIT

The postulates ot Kantian moality

In (tr,lLr ro bnnS oul lhis Incohercncc. Ilegcl lbcuscs on thc se.ics ol

|,rn'Ll{,r lo bc lbund in the Krntrrn eonception ol pracrcal .eason.rh(r. Kxnl tricd k) show thrt thc mnl agcnl nusl ha\c cenaln hopesah{n th. .lli.Ncy of his cndcrvours. rnd lhrl to mrkc thcsc hopcsIrlr ul. hc uusl conrnrit hi'ns.lflo lhc following propositions: 'l hcrch r (nxi . lhcre is rn rhe nalur! . o l thc *or ld !n or ig inal , l thouSh incom

Fchcn\rhlc disposilrcn lbr agft'enent slrh n$ral purposiv.ncss, Nndlicrc rs tinllly rn lhc hunlun soul r dlsposil(tr rhirr Inakes rl c.pdhlcol l| nclcr cndirg l,()grcss tu lhis monl purposilcnc\s (Klnl RP 20:l{X,) Krnt s.cs N n.cd Lr lhcsc postulNles bce!usc srlhoul lhenr {cror ld ha\c no gounds l i ) r lh ink;r8 thxt our mml rc l ions wr l lrl((..d.ls norhrnts ir drc nrtur.l sorld lrkcn on ils ()sn givcs us rny| t r$n lo lhrnl th! l ! lnuous bch.! iouf wl l l br ing xhout h! tp 'ncss,rhr lc lhc rehic lcnrcnl o l nrof l r l goodncss scems rnrr)ssihlc in lh is l i lc .lot h.onrcs eone(ilrblc il lhe soul is rh)ught ol as imm)dal Klntl r ld i thcs. fostuhlcs ds lhcorct icr l ly unpio\uble. hul us pnrposi t ronstlut $c Nrn .ndorsc ifortr Drtr!l undcrtrkrngs are lo nr!ke riy nruc-l rn l \cosc ( l i t r lunhcr d 's.nssrnr, scc \ {ood l9 l lJ )

No$. Kunl \ doclr inc of lh. ponulr tcs hrs drr$n l i rc l ionr Drany

{t{nc^. ln Scrcr l l . crx ic: h. ! . s.cr lhc l )ostuhlcs Ns l rconsrslcnlrr th rhc resr ol rhc Krnl ,a,r l i r ( { ( t r t . und r l t r rs.s conlnlnnrsrnS thcInkt . r l \ o l h is l i rndrnrcnlr l fosi(r(n. To \otr te. rhe nrxin inconsrslcn.rt r *nh *hr l thcy s. . rs thc rntr nrc l rphy$cr l pos, l ( r i o l lhc FrrsrL,n/ , r - . l i in i in! thr t \xnt nos t r ics k, { i \c nrnc k ind ol ra l iu lat , t ! r t l in bclrel r r thf . \ r \ tcnr. o l ( iod 0r l Ih. soul . qhcrc hc hrd

FL ,n, \ l \ n,c(cc(tc( t , r nr{r in! mch h. l ic l i t ( ) hr unnrf l ronrhlc le l ll l . t r r l , )Sl , : l l ( ) . -A\ rh. rcnr l l o l rhrs rr !unrLan- Xrnl drs l r rgurshcsfrf $((r rhe //r-,./i // r,, t \ t, t trtl llc t r & hll kt \,,. rtrd hr" Drcrnsol rh( l , l t l . r , xs $irh. n grcrrn \ $rnd. h. rerr$l ics ( lcrrn. $h1.ht l ro ' . r ( r l r . rson h.d | | l lc{ l . .1 r l i , Nrct /sehe 197.1: \ . ] .15. t 16.1)1, ,

' { I f ! \ . rh. Inronsrsl .nr \ r r t r ( u. .1 by thc posluhtcs is \ r lh Kxrr l s

. lhr{ l rhcorr ' . x i ( t r r t r f l r .u l0 $ i th hrs rnr i eudrcnn,nism l i ) r . hr \ In8

. lwt ' l r ( i r \ r I rBU,shc( l ! i r ro( I 'oni hnt tLncss, K.nl is non. lhclcss sxidr ' r ' {nr , r . rsc hrs por l ion $, lh rhc r( le i r or rhr l lgh.st (nr)d. whcrcrrr ! ! {s,r . r rnr{ hnnS rhr 'ur hrpn,ne\: i r r r ra\ rhxt wi l l onl ! s. .n]

r68

'J

169

THE DIAT'CTI< Of 'PIR

I

attainablc (according 10 Kanl) if we inlroducc the posrulate of asuprcmcsnd h€nevolentCod who can Sovem rulurc lo bring this about(cf. Schop€nhaucr 1965: Sl. p.49, 'Kant had ihe greal meril ofhavingpurged ethics of all eu.laeno

'n . . . IBull Of cours€. strictly

spcaking. evcn Kanl has banished eudaemonism from cihics mo.e inappeanncc lhan

'n rcal'ty. for h. slrll leaves a mystenous connection

berwecn vinue and suprcme happiness in his doctrine of the hisheslgood, where lhcy come logether in an abstrus{ .nd obscur€ chapter;whcrcas vinuc is obviously quite forcign to happincss. ).

Though thcy hale a certain rheloricrl lbrcc, lhcse criticisms olKanl s posilion can be met by the Kanlian. (;ivcn Kant s dislinctionbetwccn rhcorclical and practical reason. n is not clcrr lhal there islny inconsisl.ncy in rqccling lheorelical argumLnts lbr (iod and thesoul, bul deltndin8 prdclrcal argumenisl and lhcre !s no rcrson lolccusc Klni of bad fuilh on this scorc. And il xl$ sccms incorecl lohold lhar lhe d(rtnnc of the Highcn Cdxl is in lcnsion with Kanl sann-cudacmonism: lbr ahhouah Kant here makcs happrness a Soal oflhe morul rgcnt, n is not rtr happiness thal molivltcs hrm. $ Kantdes not In any wry lrcat happin€ss as thc aScnt s /.iuil lbr vrnuc

{ct 0uytr 2(XXr: l , l l 5) .Now. allhough tlegel s crilique ofthc ponulotcs is often n!vm-

ilared wilh thcsc standard obiections. shen kx,ked.rl morc closely rhiscririquc is of .j r rhcr diffcrenl kind: put simply. his ('bjocrion is iharthc lundrmcnhl dualism of Kanl s posilron nrcirns lhal Kant can dono morc thrn ponulalc lhe coincidence ofnalurc nd nrc.ality. incli-nrrion rnd duty. lnd happiness and !nor!l;ly. bul making lheconnecrion in lhrs \c^ weak way lcalcs lh( (lullrin unrcsolvd. sorhat thc subjccr rt lclt ltelrtrS lhal dny nclron rr pcrli)nns rs wonhlesstiom a nxn.rl ponrr or \eq. Accordrn811, ll.gel. tlcrclirc- lhe drlli'rulty with thc K.ntrJn liamework is rhatlt 6 oblUcd to scc thc Hrghest(nx lnd nNnl pcrt-ccrron !s somerhrng rhar w. em do no more than/'d/L liir, as sonrcthrng lhal dlgrt ro hc. bt..rsl lhc drvisions Kantscls up bclwecn th. nirturul spherc and thL nxtrxl rdcrc forcc him lopdsrr this rca|/alron rn th! beyond ll.Bcl s ohrcclion lo lhe postu-larcs thcrc,irrc t.rkcs thc lbm of a so-eall.d ,,//."L*ririii thal is. he(jcels thcni bcclusc lhly rcly on a l-Lrnd,rnre ol (Istinclion betwecnhow things rrc lnd how things oughl 1r) bc. ro *hlch lhk oughl '

170

IHE O IAL EClIC OF 'PIAIT

{.')/(r) is introduced ro overcome a dualism rhar is presupposed arthc outscl. and so cannor b€ sei aside. Hcgel surnrnanzes rhis objec-tion qu;rc cfearfy in the aetlret o, th. Hiiton of Philoephv,

lFbr Kanll Will has the wholc world, the whole ofrhe s€nsuous.In opposilion to it, add ycr Rea$n insists on the uity of Narureor the moml law, as thc ldca ofthe coul, nhich is lhe uhimarecnd ofthe world. Since. howcvcr. it is formal, and rhcrcforc hasno conrent on rts own account. rr srands opposrd to rhe impulscsand inclinarions of a subjcctile and an erlemal independ€nrNalurc. Kant rcconciles the contradiction of the rwo . . . in thcthoughl of thc highcsl (jood, in which Nature is confomed 1()mrional wi l l , and huppincss ro l inuc . . . [But] The uni f ical ionsJroken of itself thereforc rcmains only a Ecyond, a rhoughl.$hich is nor actually in eJ(istcncc. bur only oughl ro b. . . . [Thcpostulate of(;odl. like lhal ofthe immonalny ofthe soul, allowslhe contrudicrion to rcmain.r\ it is lll rhe r;me. and exprcssesonly an ihe abstract thrt thc rcconcilinrion ouShr ro come abour.Thc pollulnte ilsclf is always rhcrc. bccausc rhe Cood is aBeyond with resFcr kr Nlrure: rhc la$ ofneccssity and rhc hwof liben) are diferent from onc lnothcr. nnd phccd in rhisdualism. Nature would rem.rin Nalu.c no bnger. if it wcrc k)becomc contb.mcd ro thc Noti(u ol llt'(iood: and thrls rhcrcrcnr!ins rn urtcr opposition bctwccn rhc lwo sidcs. becausc rhryeunnor unilc II is likcwisc ricccssirry 1() cnrblish thc uniry ofthelsoi bul th is is nclcr lc lu!1. lbr lhcir scpurr l ion is exrcr ly wh l

'r fr(',rupposcd.{ l I IP: l l l . pp.16l l )

l lcScl thus hds r$o l rmr rn crnr( i / rng Klnr 's posluhlcs l i rst . hc rncsio shos th.r K.nt s dunljslrc prctLrrc nraDs hc cnn do no morc rhanxtll th. llShcst (;md rnd mornl p.rli.ti(n as toals se can stnve for.and sccond hc tri.s lo show rhlr lheni is $merhrnq incoherent In thispodnr()n srth rcspcct n) mdr!l aetron. so thar rhc Kanrian shouldatrr on thc dualism thnr hls lcd him lo it.

h\ rhc Ph.,nnwnologt. llegcl scts o t Kant s postularcs in thc.ubsrcoon cnljiled The Moral Vicw ol thc World. llcgcl fi61 dis,cui$.s rh! postul.rc thai rhcrc is in th. n.rurc ol rhc r|orld nn onginrl

171

I

TH' OIALECIIC O' 'PIRII

though incompr.hcnsihlc dislx)silion lor aSrcemenl with mool purpo-sivencs:that is. th€ assunpton rhar g(el d.{ds w'll succeed. whilebad ones will lail. The nccd for this poslulatc anses. because rhemoralisr divides naturc oil from thc morrl consciousness. by lakin!the natural order lo hc gdlcmcd by c.rusal necessity. while the moalorder is govcrncd by rhc impcmlivcs of duty 'Thc objcct has thusbecomc . . i &lrd,whosc hws l i te i rs ict ions bclong to i tsel fns rbcing which is indillcrunl lo nr()rnl scll:conscn)usncss.Jusl as lhc la(eris indi f fcrcnt 1() i l (PS: 365) (h lhc olhcr hand. rhc moral agenl Dustl r le his dul ies as $nrethrng he ern lcrur l ly t , ( , /o, , in ihe $or ld. .ndso musi s!'c nriurc irs hosplrlhlc ro hunran h.ppin.ss !s a 8o.1. Th'sneed ro o\.r.om. th( iririrl durlsnr is whll 8i!.s risc io rhc posrulrtc I hc hlnnony ol n!)r!lil] rnd Nnturc or. sincc Nalure comcsinlo nccounl onlr- nr s, l-Ir rs consL(nrsncss c\p(ncnccs rls unily $irhrt lhc hxnron) ol r|]()rnllt xnd hrppincss. is trdrarl,y'rs $merh'nrrh r ncc.\\ndfy t\- tc i t\ tr\ntlnr\l (8S 167l The nNal world-tietr rh..cin.c d^orccs nrorillv liotrr ml re !t one le\el. bul lrres l(Jmorrl;z. rt rr rnothcr

^ rclxtcd durl{n un(i.ri.\ thc rceond poftlrtc. ofrnrmonahrr

ll.rc. the p()hlen r\ rhrr on tlc onc hrnd thc Krntran secr nl(, lsubleel \ r : po$t\ \nrg r 'purr wr l l $htch drrccls lhcm |o l i ) lkNlh. idtul ltls. rhrlrll or th. i'rhcr hrnd rhct fc nonedtelcss alsondrur lbcrtrgr $ho rrc r l l . ( ler lh! $ut \ rnd s.r{k, t rs t r ! ) t r ! .s (Krnl( PrR, 5: p. l l ) . whi(h qrN n. turx l h. in ls rh. l . rnnot o! . .conr. irh. ] - thcrcl inc I r l l {hn ol rhc torc thou!f i I ofdury (PSr l6 i l ) thr lhNs no {r .h r l l l . l ior lhus. $hlc rhc f rn l $or ld\ ics rcqu reslhrt rs nnnr l rScfr \ sr \houl( l rct on th is furc {r l l rnd ! ' l asr( l r ' lnrrnrru l h. i , ' ! . (nt r l i f , ' rhd hnr( l rs , luf t l suht. ! l ' rkccenr\ se. i tnordo n, . rhcrch\ xt , t )xrerrh , t t . l l , rg nr ' l ! l g,ut , i .s unrchrc! lb l . 1rlh$. l i ) r . r t l .Nf ls k, o\ . reonr. lhrs r .nsror h! Inrnnfurrnglhc l roslulNl .ofrnnDon.r |1\ . $ hr ih i lkN\ l i , r lhc l rossrhi l r t \ {n . rn.rrdlcss prccess ol 'rc l l rnfntr cnrcnl . { ' r r no t ! ( rDt rccr l$c rc. . f l lh. l sc crnDd rehrc!e\uchSoo(ln. \ st) . l t r lh( l \xnlrxn. l l lhrsr ! ] r l \ r \ l rkrsrscr/ , ,v! / , r r . , /l . , r { . , r , ' Do' r . rur l l \ ,hr ' : tn! Nhr ' i . rherc , ' c(n ' \eousne\s. or dtcinr , rh. \ , \ o l \en\u.u{rc\ \ i l 'x lnurc e{tNcrn^n.* lPS l6t l )

l rn i l l l . l l rg. l . ( rFtr l .A rhc rhr i ( ! l )o\ruhr. . o l ( iod. l lcr .l l .gr l ' dr \ . t r { !6n r . t r ! t r { r$rnL Innr Krnl \ o\n d.n\ i ron ot th.

112

IHT DIAITCTIC Of IPIRII

F{olnl(, rnd rs closcr to a rutional rcconsrructrotr lh.nrn Intcryrc-.|xr (.ntral ro llcScl s account as n drslincli(n h. dnrws bcl$c(n'F|.! dr"y lnd sFcilic dury' He docs nor cxplarn rhi\ r,inflinol(i8yltr) (lclrl'. hur one $ay of undershndinE ir is as lbllo$s. As a m)ralGrrx'L|tn.ss, the indrvidual linds rhdl hc musr irrr in pdniculardFomstnn.cs, where what is risht for hi,n to do is dcrcmincd by his

?..rli( duiics (for cxrmplc. his obligallons k, his tanrily dcpcndanrs,

- hrs Ircnds. or his counrrymen). tkrwclcr. rhough thc nr(nl

rn$x sncss mry 3..ept that these spccill. dutrcs nrrkc u ccnrinlsr* o l rctNn r ighl lbr hrm in his pldicular s i lual ion. hc mry lcclLl lh$.oursc ol rcrron is s l i l l not h is pure duly . whcrc pLrrc dLIy 'I ||ndc^nrxl rs qhxl it would be nght li'r hinr l(t do il hc scrc lrcrathir spccrlie duli{s (lilr examtle. his specilie durir'\ nrllc rr nShr rhitL.houkl pro! id. tnr h is tbmi ly. *hr lc hi ! purL'dut\ i \ kJ gr! . r SrcrtcrF'xtnrnr ol ha nreotrre k, chrrilv) Ih. N,r l conrckrsncss trr{!Lrct:r. .on|. ro lccl rr has a chsh n ou) tccl rhnr rt a .hcld hrcti|}un do'nt whar r\ rrs turc dtr\ b! rht prnreuhat! ol rl\ s||urtrcn..rt rt n'a\ rh.rcli)r. qu.srioo rhe tal rl! ol rh. \pL.,tie durrc\ shr.h

?0ly lo r t h\ r rnr . 'o l b! ' rng In lhr t s i lur t rnr Al rbc \ rDrc l rnrc. rhcfitr||l cons(rusrcs\ \cc\ rhat thit siturti,!r rs onc ro \hrch ir bclong\.. t r l { , r . . t l \ (hr t , r rsnot l i ! . todorN pure r lLr l } rkD. Ar l tcgcl

Ihc nrnl (on\eluness ls Ih. \ , , , r , / , ( , , /nrr ! rnd r , / / , ,q , ' t '

I t r re dor. ' \ In rhc r lo in! o l r r . bntrrght rr l l r r . I rnrr $ h lhcohtccl rh,(h \ r rnds In ro. t r i rsr r , ) i r \ !nr f l icr t ! . Int0 rekrron*r lh thc r(rur l r t ) o l r l re e(nnt le\ . rsc, rnd rhcfehy h.rs x(onrt lc\ nrrr l l r l i rk,^ht t ) *) \h i t t l . r . r r :c. rn r . I t r ( r , ]fonlenl . lh. , rur l .N\ S.t rcrr l l f , rnd I r rc l r l ! ! r t ( ' I inD. 1hccontfudrelor! | {Ncrs ol thc loo$rng eorN(kru{r ! :s $( l ot lhc

In t lk l iAt th.c- ! \ rcSrRl\ lhe ,u,r d!r ie\ . rh. !n lcon\cknNnc\s 'n 8tncful hccd\onl ! t l lc , r ) r / . , / r / r , t r rhrDr: rhc u$ydutr$ trd tr'rn,li,kl rre Vr1rtu iod rhcrclnrc x! tu.h h$ctuihrn! snercd xbout th.nr lir. rhc nrml .on{ou$csr Arlhc \n r( l rnrc. hou.\ . r . b.n ' ! , r ( r \ ! r1. {n. ! th. Nol iut o l'd.rn!- In ' f I . \ x ronrt lc\ rerrx l r t \ rnd rhrkrarc a cdtrr t lc \

173

THE OIAL'CTIC OT 'PIRII

moml r.lalion to ir, these many duties musl b€ reSarded as p(\s€ssin8 an rotrinsic b€ing oflh€ir oen.

(PS: 369 7ol

Now, lhis is obviously an uncomfonablc snuation for rhe moml a8$rlo b. in: on fic one hand. as a panicular individual, he s€es rhar h.h.s specific dulies (e.9. to hisdep€ndanrs and friends), bur on rhe orhrihand, fmm a more univeEal srandpoint. h. s.€s that it would b€ h! crif he wcre free to do his pure duty (e.8. give morc mon€y lo chrnr! |The problem here is this: how can thc morll world,view ground rh(obligaloriness of sp€cific dutics. when ihcy appcar ro go aSainn rlfcomf,clinS dcmands of pure dutyl tlcrc. Ilcgel claims, rhe motuli\rinlroduccs (iod, who sanclifies'thesc spccific dutics, by so a.mnSrnglhe world lhrl they arc just as elfcctivc rt bringing abour rhe good x'

Thus it ir pixrulaled rhat ir is drdrr.r cons{iousness shrehmakcll lhem [i.e- the sp€cific dutierl srcred. or which knows !n(lwills lhem s dulies. The lir$ holds ro purc dury. indiffcrcnr t(,all vra!& content. and duty is only this Indifference row.kl.such conlent. The olher. however. contains rhe cqually essenrrrlrclaoon to doina , and to rhe necessiy oflhe rp..tli,i contcorsincc lbr lhis othcr. duties mc,in Vr! i/i. durics. the conrenl r\such is cqually essenlial as thc lbm which tnakes the conlcnt rduly. lh is consciousness is consequcnr ly onc in t lh ich univ$sr land pd.ticular are simply one. ahd its Noti('n is. rhcreforc. rh.srnrc rs the Nolion of the h rmony ol motulity and happinc\\. Ihis rs thcD hcncetbnh a mastcr lnd rulLr ol the rlorld, NhL,bring\ rlxut thc hamhny of nr(ml'tv rnd hrtp,ne\s. and !r rh.srnrc rrmc srncrrlies dutics in thLr muhiplcrry.

(PS: l r r r r

( )ncc n has lx)srul l led ( iod In lhrs wny. lhc mrr l con$iousness.r , llccl libcrltcd lrom ille demands ol purc dur!. !i rrs role c.n hfconlined kr thc obse^ance of spccitic dutics: Ihty in gcneral thu.hlls outsidc of rr inro ano$er being. which rs loDscrousness and lheslc.cd l lwgiver ol purc duty {PS: 371}. lh is rhcn lcads the Krnr i r fkr h !c rn cquivocrl position on thc issuc ol thc rclation bct*c.ri

TH€ DIAIECTI( OT 'PIRII

lry|ncss and virtuei on the one hand. the moral consciousncsslnrri rl has nol p€dbrrned its pur€ duty, and so feels unwonhy andI.d.*rving ofhappiness; on the other hand, il b€lieves thal God will! th.t this failur€ is nol its fault. as it has done what is rigll in lhe

.|Ctrutances. and so may erp€ct forgiveness and hence someIrlln of well-b€ing (PS: l7l).

Thus. without followinS Kant's own disussion, Hes€l has

hqht out the three centlal ltatures ol K$nl's moral ffgum€nt forOod. namely thar the moral consciousness lr€ats the moral law as

Inmlndcd by God (God sanclilies the specilic duties); thal rr seesOod rs hclping us 1o bring aboul lhr cxislcncc ol a good world (Cod

O ursngrs things rhal our spccilic dutics lcad to the realization oftheHlihc$ (nDd): aDd thar it relies on Ood's wisdorn to arsuc lor aGmcctron bctween ! inue and happin.ss (c l l Kant CPrR,5: p. l l l n. .

'loodl is rhus thc holy law8ivcr lond cr.!tof). lhe benefic€nl rulcr (and

Lt incr). dnd thc Jusl jud8c. ).lleStl tlen tums ro a dclarlcrl cnriquc ofthc moral qorldi iew,

h lh. srct|on enlrled Dissrmblancc or I)uplicity': pdssinSjudscmcnlq! (!nt in a tray lhai Kanl hiDrscll had prsscd judgcmenl on olhcrs.l* dcclarcs thrt lrlhc nkml sorldiie* is . . r "rhole ncsf ofllbuShrlcss conlrrLlicrions (PS: 371) Irr punreular. hc tnes k) shosout in flcl wc arc in i slron8cr posrli(nr lhrn Drfrcly possi'srrng thc'hopcs lhc Klnlian put\ li'nlinl. hot lh,rl Krnl s lirmcworl nakcs illmF$siblc f in hinr l , ) rc l fuNlcdS. lh is. lh. rcsul l . l lcgcl suSgcns. islhd thc Kanlian mrxhsl hus r \i(s oi ornlilv thrt is dilorc.d iion)rhc ncrdl-oriionircr.' r. r ion. !' thrr llilic rfi( (r! rdontcd by lhc Frenchrsvoluriurarii'.s di{usscd in lhc nr$ioLr\ \eelllrr} thrs outlook can

thxlueL nci thcr r posi t i \ . t \or t nor I dceJ'Tius, xs rcgirds lhc lirsr Jrostularc. thc Krnr'ln trcar\ 'thc h.r

rixrny ol nt(tralilr lnd Narure [.tsl.n r,?/Ll, hrmonv. nol cxplic-dly tor acrunl not prcscnt: on lhc conlrury. whal rs

tr!i{.nr rs ralheronlr. lhc conl.r.licli(in ollfi.lwo {PS:175). Bul.llcgclrrtucs. wc con do morc th{niusr tortrldft rhe harmony ofmoraljiy andn|turc:in lilct. cvc.y l imc wc ucr nx)r lly rr lhc world. wecan see nalureconlomring lo our s i l l ind rhus shosorg i lsc l f to be in hamony wit l lmofllily. nol as mere postulalc bLrt ls ! rc,]lily: Aclion. lhcrcfo.c, inlbct drr.elly llllils wh,|l sar Lrsscned eould nol take place. whnt wls

174 175

THE DIALECTIC O' 'PIRIT

supposed 10 b€ mercly a posrulare. merely a b€yond. Consciousnessrhus proclaims lhrough irs deed rhd ir is nor in eam€sr in mating rl,postul.l€. because th€ meaninS ofthe acrion is rcally lhjs,lo make intoa prcs€nt rcalrty whar was not suppos€d ro .risl in lhe pres€ , (PS375). Hegel then considers a Kanrian rcsponss. rhar ftough I lnay fin(ln possiblc lo realize panicular moml goods. lhis do€s nor show thar rhcultimatc moml goal ofrh€ HiShesr Cood is realizabte in naturc. Bur.Heg€l arSues. this Kantirn rcsponse is rev€alin8. for ii shows thar l-orlhe Kanlian. qhar makes the HiShest cood unrcalizahle as not so muchnaturc. !s thar ir rakes more rhan rhe limilcd effons of individuals n)bring it ahour; but ifrlr is so. lhcn it is not clear rlhy we should bothcraclinB morally ar all, andjust rcly insread on thr hope rhat rhe HighcslCood will mystcriously come about by irse[:

Con*-rousncss srarts trom rhe idc rhal. /d. n. momtity andrcdlrty do nor hamonize: bul ir is nor In eamest aboul lhis, forrn th. dccd the presence ol this hnrmon) brcomes .Vrr..r./,f irBul is nor In eame$ cvcn rbout lhc d€cd, sincc rhedeed is emc-lhing indiridua| for ir has such r hi8h prlqtos!. rhe fusr.ar a.'/Ilut this a8rin is only ! disscmbtancc of rhc facts. for su.hdrsscmblancc would do d\r!y wirh ll actron lnd a moratiry. In, hs $mds. cojjslgu:!!)'l: uobrru!1rNkms. gjggl$r

-q ' !hrx, , ,d a{ron: shf l r r r ( r l l } hoU. r i , hJ m,hr Jc, i r ;htc. n,bc the Absolure. is lhar the highcsr Bood bc accomptjshed. andth t motul aclion be $rpeduous

(PSr 177)

ln $\cnec. rhcn, ll.gel s objcclioD to thc ltrst IiNutrrc is,lujte simplc.lh('Klnrran rruns tionr a basi( duatrsm ot motulrr\ and narure. andrhrs hlinds hinr lo rhc t.cr rhrl enou8h ot our nr(mt !o.ts nre achicrrdk, m*c coDrnued mo.!l arrion rari()nr| bur oncc rhrs frcr is ndnri(ed.wc ar(, no lonScr obhgcd to rear thc'lSrccmcnl k)t thc lorldl wilhmor.rl prlrpos'rcncs\'as a mere poslulnte. in ihc $a! rhar Kani iricsk! do. Thc KrntirD moralist crnnor sce rh!s. howcvcr. wirh the resull(llcScl cl ims) thrl he faals to be in cnmcsl shcn it comes ro lhev!lL'c ol moral action.

As rcgards thc sccond postularc. ltcSct poses r dilemma for theKanlian. ()n lhe one hand. hc argucs, lhc Kantian cannot lrear lhc

176

IHE OIALECTIC OF 'PI3IT

sJly pure will as one wirh ,, desires and inclinalions. becauseaa..*r!. ir would be impossibl€ ro e,(plarn irs capacity for action.C th. o.hcr hand, lh€ Kantian could s.e the momlly purc will ar

t:'i.in8 desiros and inclinarions, but rh^r rhe!€ arc ia .orfornit!'t|) $. dicrat.s ofnomliryt but lh€n. if rhe Kantian is right io iake

lt||tursl subjccl as phenomenal and thc morsl subjecr as nournenal.Ity rhould we think thar rhis conformity should eler aris€. as lheallbrtnt rcalms have different structuresl Thus. while the second

F|llilc seems lo hold oul some hop€ of overcoming th€ dualism of

-y.nd

inclinaiioD in an infinite bcyond, Kanl s actualposition would

llo* luch hopc to be misSuidedi 'thc hamony lofmorllity and sensc-

nlfll is beyond consciousncss in r ncbulous remoteness whcre

dting can any more be accuratcly distinguished or comprehendcdiI our altemptsjust now ro comprchcnd thrs uniry failed (PS: 3713).taoo. llcgcl arSucs. this resull will not r.rlly bothcr thc Kantian.

lcrurc in facl he sees moklity.s consistin8 injusl this neveFending

aqslc berween dury and inclinatron. us wiihout rhis si.ugSle thclh|ous rndiladual coulti nor shos rhar hc is capable of resislrng rhc

FFiull rhrdli of tcmp|ltron: Nlornlity rs borh thc d.rilill of rhis

it! puqhse. and !lso the conscnusncsr o! risrng iborc scnsc-natu.c.O(bcing mixcd uf, trilh scnsc{ tur. rnd slru881in8 rglinst il. Tholdncnusncss is rol rn cirmcsr irhoor thc pcrrceli(D ol nrrally is indi'c.lcJ by rhc lircl lhrr consci(Nsn$s nscll \hili\ 1r nwry ink, trrii^,1, . . rNs.r ls t l r l t thc Dcr lccl(nr is nc\cr p(r lcctcd l l 'S:378).

I indl ly. is . .8.rds th. th iRl postuhlc. I l .gcl r r iscs two obicc '||(rnr. l_trsl. ngarnsr th. rd$ rh.r (ntrl \rn.lilirs our spc.'li. dnrics xnd$ m.rkc\ lhen ohhg.rk ' t_1- l lcgcl argres rhrt thr{ b inco'npar ib lc $rthth. .onnnrtn)enr t(' n('rnl rutur,ln\ Nh,eh r\ lurdamentrl ro lhcXrnlrrn [r,$lron. lnd i(i K.nt \ In\i:lcn.r lirt sc shlllnot l(\rk uF)nttlons !s ohli8it(iru bcc.u\. thcv rrc conrmrnds of cod. but shdll|t8!rd thcnr 0s d^rn. conn.Dds hc(rus'r wc h!!c rn in$.rd ohliga-lkrn to them lKanr (PR: Asle ' l l8{7r Thus. the Kanoan cunnor

{t|c8l lo Cod lo ovcrcomc thc rcnsr(Jn bel$'een pure and sp(cillcduticsl

rhc mornl sell-conscrorslcrs . . . holds these ,,a,l duries |o beotuissrnriali lbr ir i\ corc.r cd only with the one pure duty. and

111

lHr ora L Ea rra or SPrrrT

the m,y have no rruth /or r/ in so far as lh.y sre vr.if. duries.They can thcrcfor€ have their trurh only in another being andare mad€ ecr€d - which rhey are rot for thc moral conscious'ness by a holy lawgiv€r. Aui this again is only a diss€mblanccofthe rcal position. lbr the moral self-consciousn€ss is its ownAbsolule, and duty is absolulely only what t lrowr as duty. Burduly it knows only as purc dutyi what is not sacred for ir is nolsacred ir rtsell and whar is not in itselfsacred. cannot be madcsacred by lhe holy ttein8.

(PS:. l t i0)

lleSel s second objcclion concems lhe possihiliry ofconceiv;n!(iod as a moral rgcnl. actins unde. an imperarivc of pure duly, whilcwe cnrry out our specillc dulies. Hegel s claim is lhrlt such 'r purelymoral being rs an unrcal abshcrion in which the conccpt ofmorality.which involves ihinking ofpure duty. willins. md doins il. would b.donc away wilh (PS: ltil). In olher words, il is hard to concerle ol'(jod, as a beinS lackinS in.ny sp€cilic athchmcnts and as existinSourside the wodd. as halins any moml a8ency wrrhin rt: God jLrsrapf'esrs to bc alto8erher bcyond rhe moral srtLr.rt|on. Thus. while thcKani;an moralisl lhinks rhar we sre not capable ol lully delelop€dmoral lgency because wc arc afecred by scnse-nature and Naturcopposcd lo it . ,l is nol clcrr lhal Cod is capablc ofm(trrl uScncy erlher.since the ru4lrrl of pure duty is ;ts rcult.utun n Narure and scnsc ihut (bd is abote thc rr4. is/c ol Narure and scns. (PS: l t l l ) ,and! i ( ,out{ide rhr rcalm in whrch motul actio. tales placc. ()ncd ngrin,lhcrclbrc, lhgel clarms rhir rhr Kanoan h.s ! d!fii.trlrl in rcl.t,ng rhcrcal l ' of monl !c l i ( )n $i lh his (on.epr 'on of lhc n,)rJ l sr l l .

l]ronr lhrs criliquc ollhc nx)rrl consciousness, tlcScl nr.)vcs lo a kindol t lh i$ l oul look lhr t hc c| l ls . , r !k,rr . . whrch s. ts out to cscap.lhc afbrias lhal hc!.r morulu, (ilnscicncc thus de.rs thc intemaldr!rsions which 8!tc risc to thc disse'nblancc k,f m)rnlrryl, rhc di\ irk,n bctween lhe in-rr{clf and lhe scli bct$ecn purc duty qua purcpurrx,se. and rcaliry qua. Naru.c and s€nse oprx,scd kr pure purposc-(l)S: lli5) Conscr€occ ihus has none oflhc (ler8ncd) sclldoubts ihar

178

TH€ DrArf Ctrc of sPr i rJ

b.t moralrty. It takes itsclf to know how to acl in panacular cases.ld do.s not fe€l any tension belween pw and spccific dutics. 'forI f&r is lhat pure duty consists in the empty abslractioo of pureLl|thl. snd has its rcality and its contenr only in a spccific reality, inI rrlrty *hich is the realily ofa consciousn€ss itselt and conscious-: nol as a m.ru "thought-thing" but as an individual' (PS: 386 7):It do.s conscience feel its natuml self as a check lo such know-Itr or moml adion. Likewise. n does nor worry about whether orld nrturc will frusrrate irs 8o.1ls. becaus€ whar matrcrs to ir is rhar*$ r.r il hasal leN ?ri{,./ lo acr well:'What is done wnh the convic-

-n

ofduty is. rherelore. ar orcc something rhat h s standing and !

ll cristence. Thcrc is. ihen, no morc lalk of 8md inlentions comingI nothing. or ofrhe Sood man faring badly (PSi lSli).

Nonetheless. IlcSel Afgues that the situation l-or conscicnce is!t as str.ightfoNard 0s;r clarms. and ir loo inlolvcs clemcnts ofttrcrnblance. For. firsl. consci€nce holds that il can derrnnine wharI dlhl in panicular concrctc situations by lhinkinS lhbuSh the cotrr-

Oficcs ofrrs possible rcthnr: but ho* cnn ir clai to ha\'e a fullldcrsllndin8 of whrl lhosc .onsquences might bc. givcn thetorpl€iiry inlohedl: ir docs nor possess rhrl full acquatni,rnce wilh

-tllharrtlendanl circunrshnc!.s {hich is rcquirrd, rnrl . its preicncc

oa mnscienl iou\ ly wcrshrng l l r l rc c i rcumslanccs is ! r i r ' ( lS: 390).l lmihr ly. conscicn.c only dLnics thr l lhc rcr l s i t r r l i ( in involvcs aahlh ol nroral dul ies hceru\c rr thrnk\ r r ean rely on i t \ 'gur tcel ings'!r tcll il whar ir otrghl r(' rlo iirscicncc dctinrls this position by.ry{ing lhat depcndrng oI onc\ point ol-!rcs. rr r\ Jx'{\ahlc to see.lr N anllhing !s r Dulll) l(Silimrlc rclxnr. !, thrl onl! such gulfctlinSs cln re.ll) e(nnir m rhc cd: [( on\cicncc) plirccs in dury. aslhc lcmnty] uni \crs. l in- ' rscl l icss. lhc conrcnr rhr l i l lx lcs l ionr MluralIndi!idullrtli lbr thc eonlcrl rs dne that 1s prcsent suhrn itscll- (PS:l9 l ) l losc\cr . lhc indi \ i r l r r lcxnnot bc su.e lh l r orhcrs wi l l shdre hisnoml

'nluirions. and rhus clnrot be sure how hc will hc lud8ed by

th.m. (iDsciencc rhcr.li,rc islr lo bc judSc! mrlly on irs eonscicn-lioulncssr lhqlis, lrhcthcr rr $us actirs coneclly by ils o!,r lghls:

whether rhe nssururcc of aetinS from a conlrction of duty isrnr4. wherher whnr rs don. rs acrually a ./rrr rhdst questionsor doubts ha\c

'ro nrcrDrns trhen addrcsscd lo conscience.

179

ITHE DIALECIIC OF 5PIRIT

To ask whether the assurance is rrue would presuppose rhat rhcinner intention is different l'.om lhe one put forlard. i.e. ihalwhat the ind;vidual self wills. can be separated from duty . . .Bul this distinction between the universal consciousness and iheindividual selfis just whar has bccn superseded, and the sup€r-

I sessron of u r{ con\cience. rhe sel fs rmmedrare Ino$ing rhar

I is certr in oi i rsel f i i law snd duty.

| (PS: l9G7)

At first. the inwardness ofconscience brings grerr consolalion,as x appears lo thc agent rhat he can now make it impossible for orhersnol lo recogn'ze his moral senius' (PS: 197), as he can makc sure rhatal the very lcasl they acknowledge his good inrcnlions: 'The spint andsubstance of their association arc this assurance ol their conscien,oousness, good iDtenrions. the rejoicing o!er ftcir nroral purity. andthc .efreshing of themselvrs in rhc glory of krowing md uftc.ing, ofcherishing and fostering. such an excellent stare ofaffairs' (PS:198).Ilowcvcr. lhe individual comes to see that rhe best way 1() sccurc hisreputalion lirr integrity in ihe eyes of olhers is ro rcfrain from acrjng,as aclion mi8ht lead to a misintcrp.ctation of his motrlesi thc moralgenius lhus brcon]es the 'b€autiiul soul : Il lilcs in dread olbesmi.chins the splendour oi-ils inner b€ing by action and an cxis,tencei and. in ordc. lo presene the purily of its hcdrt. il flees tiomconlact with the aclualworld, and persisls in its self-silled impotencc1o renounce ils selfwhich is reduced to rhe extreme o I u ltimate abstrac-lion lPS: .100). (Fo. a usel-ul sludy thlt puts Hegel s drseussion ofthcberut i fu l soul in i rs in lc l lcctualconrexr. see Nonon 1995.)

- , t rJrJ $irh l l "c emtrrn(. . ufrhc b(Jut i tJ l .oJr.

Dc" r ! .Lt i r e{r : r r r . bur rr ,Ul l \ 'c . r \ ' l r ' .F n),{J l l ) J r th,r i rJr \ f . - ,lial lhcrc is rn incritable conllicl bclrvccn indi\idual consciousncsses.

xnd bctseen indi!rdurls rnd rhc uDilcArl qua eslablished mo.al order:'As a resuh, rhc ant i rhesis of indi ! idual i ty ro other indiv iduals. and rolhc unjveFal.

'neritably comcs on the scene. and sc h!!c to consider

lhs relarionship and its movemenl (PS: .100). As a resull. the indi!idual who acts iiom consciencc will look e!il to othen who abide bythc eslablished moral order. because hc refuscs to acr in accordMccwilh lhc duiies lard do*n by that o.der: the rndividull will also beaccuscd of hypocnsy, because he clarms l(r bc interested in acting

THE OlAIECIIC OT SPIRIT

nDrully while ar the same time flouling the moral rules: In contmstb this intemrl determination tof conscienccl there thus stands thc.lctnenr ofexisrence or universal consciousness. tbr which rhe essen-lhl €lcment is rdher universality, dutyi while individuality, on rheolhcr hand. which in contrast to the universal is tbr itseltl counts onlyar ! supen€ded momerl. For the consciousness which holds firnly !oduty. rhe first corsciousnes" counts as dril. because of the disparitybctween its irr.r rcirA and the universali and sincc. d lhe samc timc.lfiis lirst consciousness declares its action to be in conformity wirhhr.lf. lo be duly and conscienliousness. it is held by rhe universalconsnrus.ess to be l rTrxr r ' (PS: : l0 l ) .

In facl. ho$$er. liegel argues, thrre is litllc lo choose belwcenthcse lwo fornrs oi consciousness. ln condemning lhe indilidualconscience.lhe dut|l-ul majorily shotr lhemsclvcs to be more interestedin c. i t ic iz ing othcrs than in acl ing themsel!es. whi le their accus. i ion

_of hlpo.ns*(n. , . ) ' J mun-ninJ(J 'p r i l . b l int l to lh( morJl int{Bnr)

-,.9[ih-c ororal iml' iourhr' \,' n,an s ] hcro ro hi' \ rler. nor. ho$e\ cr.

tt cause rhe nran r. nor a heftr. but becruse lhe lalel is a llllel (PS:404). Thc morNl indi!idudlist thus comcs lo scc lhll its criti. has much '

h common $irh rrsall and thal both are equally hlliblc: fi thereibre'confesscs' lo thc othcr. cxpccling thc othcr l() rc.ipr({rlc. llowcvcr.rl firsl the olher does nor dd so, rerDrinirg hr(l he rtcd : it thus tn,//b.comcs a hcrutilirl nrl trkinS up a fosition ol dcrrngcd srnctimonrousness {PS .106 l)

With th is r \ rd.nl kr lurc. thc 'hrk l hcrr t is Lrccd lo rcconci le i tsel l s i th rh. nr t r r l in( l i \ r ( l t [ l in- r ' c leh r .co8n,/cs the one-r idcdncss ol i ts posi t ion. tnnl hcrcc o\creorrc\ r l In th is insighl ( rndlhc nrole t ionr hu( l l .nf lcdDL:: ro rnr l r \ .ne\r r l hntrF\) . l le le l seeslhcnttr innrcnl o l -x I ,R,Nrl l drr lc( l r ( .1 s l rn lNrr l . . Inonrcnl o l - bcingd home thnl con\ l r lLrr .s t l ' r rcn| , , r f ( oJ Sfrnt

The rcconci l ing ) id. rD $hL.h rh. rso 1 s lc l 80 rh. i r .nt i the!icnl { l rk1n,. A lhe . \ iv . r ( . o l the l whrch has c\nlnded in loa dual i ty. and th.Nin rdnrr t r \ rdcr l i . r l wi th us. l l and. in i tscomplctc extcmalilxrxnr n(l oppositc. possesscs thc cenainlyol i isel l i t is (bd mrni i is tcd in th. midst of those *ho knowrhemsellcs in thc fornr ol nurc k owlcdsc

(PS: 409)

r 80 ta l

l l l ! orata<trc or t t rr t r

Widl tbn tbfi{a nftrld.a to co4 HGg.l co|tslctr. li dilotr.id ofSdrit i. thir ctal'.', &d givr. binraf. bdSa io tta dirculrkn ofttligid h th. Ht, rt r! . ndbcr of tuioitg dialccdcd ladriq$ftuir !o b. pleycd od.

pt.r a

.llrr dlrlcctlcol Rcllglon(Pheno,nenology,C. (CC.) R€ligion)

R.llqfon

t v. rlrqdy !.cn, anory dlc miny dicholomic!to nbdcm consciorr$c$ thlt Hc{cl wfuhca

thcr. i! thc dicholomy offaith and rcasol!

firSlE

*

tprtrthar w. havc alrqdy Witn€ss€d this dichotomy

poitrts in $e Phenonenologr, when consid-0|c Unnappy Consciousncss, Crcek €thical lif.,

thc EnliShtcnm.nl (PS: 410-l l). ln his discussionEnlighlcnmcnt, and ils appr'Ert viclory ovcr

(!!$ on an oppositioo bctwccn Cod and man,rnd intcllcct, r€ligion lnd philosophy. Hcgcl

iD tbc chapler on Spirit, Hegcl clearly forcsh6d-oul rctum to r€ligion in this curcnt chaptcr: 'lr.!€€ wheih€r EnliSht€nmcnt can rcmsin !stis6€d;

yt€miru of thc tloutl€d Spirit which moums ove!lo.r of itl spintual world lurks in thc bsckground'

349). TIIG instability of thc Enlightcnmcnt's, rnd its inability ro bri.g u! satbfa.lioq

bc.tr d.monltrated. and this h&e bccn fllcd out indirculsrcn of the unstablc Dkcc of cod wiihin rc

183

THT OIALECTI( OI iELI6ION

Kantian fr.mcwo* of'Morslity'. It b no* ther€for€ rimc to rcrum l()rcligion to sc€ how fnith can bc rcinr.Srald inlo a lcss ooc{id(d phr k,.sophicrl oudook, in which rhc optosiiion bctwccn thc sheert\tiznsccndcni.nd thc unerly $orldly is overlomci .Thcrc is indc€d oniSpidt of both. but its consciousnc$ do.! noi cmb.rcc borh rogeftLr.and rcliSion appears as a psn of eristcnce, of conduc! |nd activitr.whose orhcr pan is fte life lived in irs rcsl world. As wc now kno*that Spirit in its owr world and Spirir conscious of irs€tfas Spirit. orSpiril in religion. are the sme. rhe p.rf.crioD of religion consisrs lnthe two b€cominS idenlical wirh each other'(PS: 4t2).

Hegel s ailn in this chapGr. rherefore. is ro show what rhr,'p€rfection ofreligion'might look likc. ad how ir can be reached b\relisious rhought. Th€ laner must be radically differcnt from lhe kindof religious bclief targeled by rhc Enlightenment. wh€r€ fa h wl|\supposcdly prcved by scnpture (which w$ then shown ro bc hisrori-cally inacc'rratc). to b€ based around snefacrs and relics {which werrlhen shown to be no more rhan natuml objecrs), and ro involve a rranscendent deity (which rhen became unknowabte). Heget rakes himsctrto have demonstded how rhc anempr by lhe Enlighlenmcnr lo purreligious consciousness aside wa! disasrrousi he now sels our ro shoshow rcligion may be conceivcd in { wry lhar mak€s this ncsarilestance unnccessary. so that r€ligious beliefmay be incorporaled wirhirphilosophy. and not excluded fmm il. lle rh€refore otTers her€ i .econsrucrion or Interprerltion ofrhc dcv€lopmenl ofrcti8ion.lo show ho$religious rhinking may be seen as convertdng on rdrher rhan depaninsliomrhc insiShtssocenrEl rolherataonalisricphitosophicalconscrous-ness of lhc modcm world. This chapter rhercfore has a more detin,recultural-hisloric.l ,rnd chronoloSical characrcr thln thc prsvious onc:ll should bc said. however. th.r this ulcmpl by Hegcl to.swinS rcl,grous conscrousness jnro lirll suppl)n ofa scientific intcrprcrarion orhum:f lifc'(tlams l98l: .lo2) has proved highty conrrolersrat. r\some have takcn it lo compromrsc lhe onginal Entighretrmcnr projecr.whilsl others halc seen il rs an Incvrlable disronioo oflhe proper retr-gious outlook. In so far as borh ot rhcse responses invotve whar l{egclwould havc se€n as on€-sided conccptions of philosophy and farrhrespcclively, th€ir p€rsistenc€ is an example of the easc wirh whichconr(iousncss can b€come nolJfi.,cd in rhrs ! av

LLrrl

la4 145

TH' DIATECTIC OI h 'LIGIOI{

1fu8.1'r sttrt.8y for ovcrcomin8 this polrrization is to consid€rof Gligious coNciourncas, from 'n!nf.l EliSion' to

io thc form of.tt'to Evcrlcd EISion'.r thrcby ho?ing lo

I fu from dicnrting u! fiom th. world rnd 3isnding oppGcdEligion whcn gopcrly dcvclopcd cxprEsscs jurt this

oullook, rlbcit in a non-philosophical form. Hc thccforcto rbow how r€ligious coN.iousncss mwl comc to adopl aupholdr r.thcr ihan r€jecls a lrtional vi€w of th€ world, so

li. cnd thc sltuggle b€tw€m lhe EnliShtcruncnt and rcliSiousI ma ! boltlc thst cilher side nc.ds lo fi8hi, as whcn prDFrly

.ach can incorDor.te the othcr. Put anoihcr way: Hegcl

b !ftow thal lhe kind of ntionalistic picturc that philosophy

b i..d not brinS m end to religion. sinc€ the s ne picture ispresent wilhin religious cotrsciousness ilself H€ th€rcforethc underlying telos In the evolution ofrehgious conscious'

h od.r to €3trblish lhat ir ils hiShest form it cln bc ftad.

with philosophy, and is not intriosically oppos€d ro h' asarheiitic thinkeB ofth€ EnliShtenmcnt (and espccially

F.qrh EnliShtenment) had supposcdh bcginning with natural rcligion'. Hegel takes himselr to te

r€ligion in ils simplest or most immedial€' form. whcrela no scoamtion between man and naturc. and thus where naturcl. divirizcd. fi6t in lh€ fom of lighl. and then in rhe form of.Ddanimals. In light-reliaton,lighl is takcn lo be acreativc force

bin$ lhe *orld inio bcins oul of dartness. and which rhc indF

thcrcfore vcncratcs. This light-forcc lacks any detcrmrnanon.

, lnd appcars insubsianlial ifl comparison to lhe material

Rcligious consciousness then secs rhc dcity in plant md aninal

whcre in lhe latlcr lhe gods take on lhc mosl primitive aspcct ol

(s.en earlier in lhe rBnsition from lif€ lo Desire). in the

of animal sods with each olher. refrecting the struggle for

beNeen diffcrcnr Mbal gmups. However. assGiety movcs

lhi! division into trib$ to the emergence of empire and the

dlis brings.'Spiril enters into another shaPe'(PS:421). wh€rc' conceolion of God r€flects their transilion from warrio.s

Ith turalists. who now see thems€lvcs as r€lating to thc divine

THE DIALECTIC OF RELIGION

This proccss gives rise to ftr 'rrtificea or master-cransn[r.whose task is lo fabricare objects of religious signilicance, so thrjdiviniry rhen no longer exists in a purely given or natural form. Alfirsl. the masreFcmiisman only crcates objecrs that have a geometriQlshape. bul the abstmction of these objecr! .enders ftem unsarisfyin!lo religious consc iousness, so lhat rh€ cratisnan begins to make obiecr\in planl and rnimal shapes. untrl they finally assume humnn fom. Althrs level. howeler, lhc statues of gods thll rhe craiisman c.catc:cannot communrcalc 1o us rn human termsi when this limitation rs lrdnscendcd, and the divine is sccn !s sharing oLrr hnguagc. lhe anrsan ,'no longe. a crafhnra.. bur an adin. in so hr as thc gods he crear.\no\! come to have an .,.yr.\rtrc function.

Religion in the Form of Art

ln movrng tiom naturalrcliSion to rellgion in rhc fonn ofari , llc{elmakes clclr thal we are now considerlrg the religious ourlook oielhical Spinr. which (as we hal'e sccn) Hegel took ro bc cxempllii.(iby the Greeks. As pr.viously. Hegel prcscnts ns with a picturc themphaszes the aftacrions but also the limihrions ofthrs elhicll Sp;ilIlcgcl makes clear thal it the lelel of us rcliSious consclousness.reprcsents, hiSher achievement than e\eryrhlng thrl has gone betbr(.something rhrl is nradc p('ssiblc by lhc social tbml oflhc,rdln:

lSpirnl is lbf rhenr ncirhcr rhe di ! ine. .^sscnl i , l t - ighr In whosfunr l ) lh. b. ing- l i ' r -sc l f o I scl i_ corsciuancs\ is.onrr i .ed onl \

' rcSr l i lc l ! . or l t l rnfs i ( r r ly . rnd in whic l i r beholds th. lokl0rL

nusler ol rts rcftrxl {orld. nor is it th. r!'\ttes5 dcsrructi{nr rirho(r I l1cof lcs. nor thr i r srb]cct ioD rJ r l ls lc- \ ]s lcnr t ! t r i .hgi ! .s rhe \enrbl |n( . o l org.rni / r t i (nr of . romtl . rcd $hotc. bulrn *hi .h thc u i \ersr l l ic .donr or rhc indi \ iduols is hct in{ ( ) r llhc eontturv. r l r i \ Spint is drc i ; r 'c ru l ion in uhi .h hatt ,^re{ lcusl(rD (otrst i tut ! 's r l rc \uhstxnee ol x l l . $ ho\c aerur l i ty dnd e\ , \re ' rec caeh lnd c\cr l rnc Inows k) bc his own wi l l dnd deed

{PS .115 r

Howeler. l lcgcl rcnr inds us herc rhrt th. Ixnnont he rssocirres wir t lrhc pol , r is unstrblc, .nd ns elcntur l d isntur lon i \ rcf lcctcd in rhf

la6

C OF RELI6ION

lL'lulc ad of(jreek r.!sedy. in which relision in the fom ofnrl

-h|n!tc\'

Priu' kr lh( nnrnr ar $hrch Spirrl lran'c(nds arl in orJer

Itn i higher representaiion of rtsclf (PS: '126).

- Ai we have seen. Hegel takes the tuming-point lron naluml relt'

f f o nlrgron rn rhe lom of arr ru rn\ol \ e a .hr f i awa) I rom man 'pn to naturc. to mcn \ re l r r ron ro rhe r ' l ' . ro rhar rhe !od\ nos

;lody the srale ra' ,I,l rh( tsuddess Arhena. lot erdmpler' Blhcr thdn

Frl phcnomem: These ancient gods. Iirsr-born children of the

of Lighl with Darkness. Heaven. E!.Ih. Ocean, Sun. lhe Earth s

typhonic Fire, and so on. a.e supplanled by shapcs which onlv

r.aoll those Titans. and which are no longe. creltures ofNaturc.

hed, clhrcal Spirrls of sellconsclous nalions (PS: '{2il).llowcvcr. alrhough the gods now lakc on human ibm dnd are

lly rclalcd to the human comn niry. il is at liat difiicull lbr

nhtrous anisl to bring rhe peoPlc togclher with thcsc gods. when

!n hkes on a scultrural tbrm. Al lhis stlge. llegel argues.

adirl rsprres lo be tncrcly { rehicle or instrument for the divinL

r,ho kres lo scl isidc his o$n creativity rnd lrmply bc nrspftd

li.ml bul hqis also awrre lhat he has laboured io creale thc slatues

$ thrl he is also presenr In whal hc has In.rd.. ntrnding between

I ronlc an<l their sods. Thus. alrhoush lhc worshrppers mrv ltel

|b tt slatuc he has casr has nr.dc lhe 8od{ prcscnl lmonS rbcnr. ibc

lS lno$s lhur hc hds crcrlcd ! mcrc rcprcscntrliul. rs hc *rs unrblc

i '&rtcr hrnrscl l ' in i t .Rothfr than sccinS ils 8od\ as Nttc. lh.rclirr!', thc rclrllu's

Ilnrnily Dccds lo mrkc ils dr!inirics Vt!r*. n) lhar lhc]. mav ne

lr lpn d not only i r seulprural l inD. bul r r l { ) rhrdrgh,r"a. In

rbch lhc sntcr rnr! \ce hinrn'll rs simply lrrnscnbing lhe words ol'

-

ttili: Ihc {orlt or Nn th.rcLrc de rirrds iurnhcr clem.nt oi tls

at|3ntc, lht eod rnolhcr mxlc ol cornina lb.lh thrn this Ihis

lh.r c lcmenr ts Lrngur8c an ouler rcal i ty thal is imnredidtc lY sel l_

-rn|ui

cxrst.n.c . . Ihc god. rheretitrc. lho has langurge lbr the

alnrrt ol hrs sh.pc is lhe *ork ofarl lhrl rs rn ns oFn scll insplred.

|b lnscsscs inlmediately ir ils ouler e\istencc lhc pure aclililv

flth. trhcn il cxrsled .s a Thing. was In contmsl kr il (PS: 429 l0)

llitl (ontrirsts lh's usc ot thc hymn lo the role ol lhe o'acle in rcll

t|oul (ul'urcs. shcrc in thc oftclc lhc dilinil) spcaks nr dn rlrcn

.ts

187

tliii

l1

r&,

l

tHr otaLtcl tc oa RtLtGtor{

tonSue. rcflccting rhc fscr rhrr the omcle was ua.d lo setllc conrinsMlmdcrs (likc wh€th€r rr woutd bc good !o ravct) whrch werc n,icovcrrd by thc la*! ofihc Sods (which evcryon€ kncw withour havnulo coosult thc or.clc). Howcv.r. ahhough the hymn ru*s an advanc(ovcr thc oracl€, thc worshipFrs nodcth€l€$ cemc lo fccl rhst ir onttmrk€s god prcs€nr ro rh.m rn an impcrman€nr wly (rn conrrasr rc rhLpcrmr'|€nce ofrh€ st6tu.)r wc th.r€for€ mov. ro a funher form of retr_gious lif., of rh€ drr, which alcmprs lo ovcrcom. rhi! def.d b\bringin8 sp€cch and siauary logcrher, as lhe worshipp€.s sing hynhb.forc rhc ststu€s in ordcr ro wetcone and reccivc rhcir cods.

ln order for rhrs ro ratc ptace. rhe woahrppcn ancripr ro purrr.themselvcs md overcom€ rheir bodity selves (for they do not yel sce€vil as residing in lhe sout). They ih€refor€ sacnfice rhcir marenrlpossessrons, although pandoJ(icalty this sacrifice is atso a Drelude r(,r feasl. which 'chests rhe acr lof sacrificel oul of rrs n€sarive sisnirlcance' (PS: 434). The cuh s emFs to rcsolve rhis rension by inslcx(ldcvoiing ilselfro conslrucring hoty buildings, wh€re fte crearive indr-vidualiry of the ani$ ar lhe tev€l of scutptumt an is no tonger n,intusive: 'lhis acrion is nor rhe individuat labour of thc artisr. th,\panicular aspecr of ir b€in8 dissotv€d in universality. (pS: 4j5lNonefteless. the temples h€reby creat.d now come rc serve morc .\places wh€re the ciry can parade ard disptay jls weatrh and Dower.

In this phase of rcligious development. consciousness has rjoyou$ and afiimative rclalion to rhc di!inc, whrch is rcnecr&l in thLfeasling ofrhe wonhippcrs: .tn rhis enjoymen( rhcn. rs rcveated whxlrhar divane risen Liahr rea y isi cnjoyment an rhe mysrcry ofirs bc;urPS: 4Jrr Hoseter.rhecuh mcrctyretarestothcdrv,""r ," , , r r" , , .s(lf-conscious life is onty rhe mysrcry of bread nnd *inc. of(.eres rf(lBacchus. not ofthe orhcr. thc \iridty higher. gods whosc indi!iduutrl\

'nclu ' jc\ rs an ( \senr,dt nrorncnt \etr ' .conscrouin$r as su.h. rpS +l \ l

In $c games and proccrsions rhc gods continue ro bc rcpresentcd,rhunBn fom. In rh(.rhlc lr( (ht jmpr, ,n who rr . t rnJ nt t , r ,n*

"" , . .rnd \imuhancou\h a repo\rk,ry .'f nJlronat prdeHowever. retiSious con$iousness comes to t.eel lhar ir cannor

propcrly represenl ils gods in rhis way. in lerms of.corporeal ,ndlviduahly ofthe handsome wanior. lr rher€fo.e tums t.rom rhc ptaslr(rns l(' litl.rr.) foms ro lhe cprc. lra8ed). and comeJy.

188

THE DIAIECT]C Of i fLIGIOI ' I

b ih cpic, thc gods ar€ scen to Suide the actions and dcstinyportrayed in thc story, .s a conttollinE a8.ncy: 'They lrE

rnd thc positivc, over againsi ihc individuql self of

rtidr canoot hold out against thcir miShti but thc univcrsalllu! r.ason. hovcrs over thcm and ov.r this wbole world of

to which lhe entir€ cont€nt b.longs. as lh€ inatiomlNac.ssity a merc happ.ning which lhcy must fsc€ ai b€ingsa rclf and sonowfully, for these derertltdre natwes cannot

in lhb purity (PS: ,l4l). In tmgedy, by conlrast, lhe.pp.-sr morc in contrcl of their d€siiny in rclation lo the

|rc se/y'corr.i.,lri hurnan beings who *ror thcir righls andtlE power and the willoftheir sp€cific nllure rnd know how

tb.m'(PS: 444). Hegel atgues ihal this difference is reflected

id hcnce th€ actor plays a pan iz lh. drama. Nodlth€less.

of pow€rl.ssncss in relatiotr to the Sods is rcflectc'd by thc

wf ch 'cfings ro th€ consciousness ol ^n

alier late anddE empry desire for ease and comfort. lnd f€€ble lalk or

I (PS: 445). Whar tragedy really .eveals, howevea is thec6ical subslanc€ its€lf, between family and stare. femi-

Id nasculine. and lhe blindness of cnch sidc to ils othef.in tht w{} thc god\ mblca.j thc traEr( hcrucr: Thr aclion.

csni€d oul. demonstrates their unity in lhc naluml downfallpowcrs anid both salf-conscious characteN (PS:4'18). Becauie

rolc of chamclcr In lragcd). lhe t(l8k,u\ (dn$iousness no

lhinls oflhese Sods as agenb dnectinS thc lvcs ofthe heres:

ld thol wherea! in the €pic th€ nartltor is the minstr€l' who

ootrid€ lhe story. in tragedy th€ hero or heroine sp€aks for hirn

the divinc is vicwcd as faie. Hesel rcmarls rhar 'trlhis l:ttt:

thc dcpopulaln'n of Hcaven . . . Thc crpulsion of su.h

, in$bstantial prcturcnhoughts which was demmded of lheofantiquily thus alresdy b€gins in lGeek] Tragedy (PS:

lhit pnress continues funher in comedy. as th€ repres€ntarron

aod! uridg masks can be us€d ro Eveal that bcbind ir all isjuslxlor. Th€ gods lherefoE becom€ merely abstmct Platonic

|n)cked by Aristophan€s in lhe ( /,rdr, as religiousno longcr \c l . lhc dr\rne apan ln,m r l \e l l l t is the

1E9

190

THE DIALECTIC OT REIIGION

relum of ever)rhing universat into rhe cc.rainty of rtsetf which, rlconsequencc,

's thjs comptere toss of tta. and of essential beinS on

the pan ofall that is atien. Thjs self_cenainry js a srate ofspir;turlwcll-being and of.eposc rhercin, such js nor to be found anywher.ourside of th is Comedy.(pS: 452 3).

The Revealed Religion

I{egel now seh out lo show how conscrousness canDoi rest saosiic(lwith the kind of pu.ely secular outtook we na\c reachcd. bur noumovcs back to a more ovc.tly retigious ourlook and a conception oilhc divjne that represents an ad!ance on anylhinS we have wirnes\e(lh'tbeno lle purs lhis in the tb owing terms: so tar. we havc molc,lf rom the doctdne rhat Absolute acing is subsknce. (shich gi \c\pnof l ty lo Cod as i set i -subsistenr and independcnr re.r t i ty) . lo.Th.Self s absolute Bclr8 (which gives priuitv ro humanity as hrvin|lhc k ind ofsublccr i r i r l r thar ( jod is seen to ,acx, i w10 lhe finNl st.rgc of religion. jn which .Absoture Lt.ing is subjccl.(where (bd will be scen as achievnrg setf_consciousncss l,/dri!,humanity. so that neirher s idc tates undjatcmcar f rece(crrce o!cr rh l

Hegel ,n.rkcs the rr .nsj l ion t iom rhe hl tpy consciousncss,) lCrc.k comLd! lo rhe unhrpny conscjousness of Rom.n Sloicisnr an(iScepl ic isnr by focusrng on rhc ine! i l rb lc.discnchnnh.nl . of rhe so, lthar thc lbrmcr bnngs in i ls w.ke. rs co. \c iousncss conrcs to Jaet , rhrrit mcans lo srv Cod is tcki

F inc. l . n"r J ' sumLrh.nu orodu((( i . a. , ' rh( c. \c $irh IhrI-f - imm(JD'( .s( l l In rr urJ l rc l r r ron. r r , l r l { , ' in rhc ruh,run uf

l Arti on the conlrary. this (iod is scnsuously and directly beheld

^l 13 0 sclr . a. r r rcrucl InJr\ idr . r l m.rn: onl) ' , ,

; ' rhr . t ' , ,d 'c l l -,

- , ' ls

l<r) l

I In ralrn! rh i ' ronn. rr lurod..ons( i ' tusnL* hr\ . ,m{ru r t idr rh(

] t |cr !srmcrtr ing'e ' , r / , Jupr/ / i^ \ I . G, 'J h! : n, ,u D((onre.rorh.r

D6ct. LnuwrblL r" u. r ' :hJ nr I r , ,1- n l rur$ l he drvnc nJrIL h

.D r .m. ! . .1h( humdn.. ,n( l , ' , . rhr \ unrrv rh3t r ' Nh..J ( l ' i { (Jrr) . \ r' ) Imc,,m.. L;od renr.r 'F . 'uh{Jnic. ror In h(( ' l r rF hunun

] l !ma'n{ urcn,rdr ' ,oncd Jno Jh- ' lJr . . InJ((d. I r . . ! r l } ' } L(( , rn,nr

brn 'ht i r

H{, , t r r l . un. , 'nJIrun(( l . r r r l rh- , lur . \ (uFr. ih. .

lfrl argu.s thal once this posilion has been reached. relisiousiousncss can neve. lind itself in a rctum' 1o naturd roligion o.I8ion. and that religious beUefmust thcreforc lake $other form.by cncounterins God in rhc shapc ofr hurmn being can religiousiouness recovcr itsell and thereby take us beyond olher prevrousi.i of reli8ious experience:

Thr: Selfofcxislcnt Spirir hrs. as a resLlll. lhe form ofcompleteimmcdilcy: il is posncd neither as something thought or imag-

* llc would bc set over lglinsl us ir ! turcl! lrrrs.crdcnl

a&n' fhcrbsolulc l lc ing shreh c\ ist \n\rn. . tu! l { ' l r ' .onserorsncss

Fn| kr hr \c c 'onre do$rr l iotr i rs. tcn[ l srD]pl i . i t ] . t 'ut by lhus

f,',lnt lrra il has in lict llrarncd ri)r rh. hrn tinr. k) ils o\rn hrgh-

- . rscncc

(PS: .1 i r0) Thtrs. l l .g. l xrgucs. onlr- In lhe re\calcd

lm crrn wc tnr ly concci \c ol thc dr\rne rs ab! ' u lc. Thrs is whl

3Lr{urr t } .onst i tutcs thc hiShcsl lonn ol rc l ig ious conscrousnessltlL hoFs rnd cxtcctrlions ol lhe sorld ut trll now hrd prcsscd

lrr.id solely tu thrs re!clarror. lo behold whNr ibsolul! acing is. rnd

I I n ' l ind i lsc l l - (PS: 461] As tre sh. l l scc. t lcgcl lNkcs lh is lo coin-

||a. wrlh hi\ osn philosorhicrl ourlook, rccordins to Nhrch such

hi.rnd erpc.r.rions arc tirlilllcd in nnrch lhe same ray. so rhrr

br thc tensrrn bcrsccn rclision and philosophy rs linall) xnd ir

F|E|plc ov.ruome ( l ]ora usctul seneral d iscussbn of Hegel snnNl

Firn. s.c l loulgxte l99l : 176 : l l )

l ian in t ic e lcmrl la{s ot thc gods h s vani \hcd. and t t r .( ) r .c les, *hieh pr(xureed on frnr.ul l r qu.s l ions. l re dunrhThe slr t rcs rr . fo[ ont ] noDcs t io,n which thc t i ! rng nut hr\f losn. tun rs thc hvnrns rrc $o.ds t .om *hich bel iet .has gof.Thc roblcs oJ thc gods fn)vrde no spir i ruat t iDd and dnnk. Nn( j

'n hi\ grme\ rnd lc\lilrt\ Inrn no l(Dgcr re.orcrs nrc t()\,r!

.onsciousn! 'ss ol h is uDity wi th lhe di l ine. Thc wo.rs ol rh(M! '$ now lxcl rhe po{er of lhe Spir i t . tbr rhe Spir i t hrs garf(( li ls ccnr int) ' o l i lsc l f t ionr the c.ushrng ofgods aDd mcn.

TI]E DIALECTIC OT RELICION

t ,

t9 l

IHT DIALTCTIC Of RTL C]ON

lld{.!cr. helorc ttls pornr .an be rcachcd. rhf rc!crt.d relgrL,t r rust dcr l $rrh rhe t i l lo\rnf dr l i i .uh\ : ho$ ean (n! t . rcrmrred ,npanrcohr Indr!rdual . noncrhclcss sh.rc t t is nrru(, \ t r us at l . r .d 'snncl nrdr!rdualst : . , c. Sfrnr !s !n ,nd, ! idual Sel . rs Dor ver cquat \lhc uDrvcrsr l SelU rhe Scl or cvch- 'onc.(pS: : t6:) . . to rc i t lc th i .prohlcrn, rhe di !1nc Nrsr Br\c up rr \ iDrnleorxrr , rncl l rnr tkD. and hLrcsurrccted. so that rhc rct lBrous cdwnunitJ, crn see lh l t ls .x i \ tene\i \ mtr( t l l . l r ' rh i r ohjc(rr \e rn( lLt t r lu! t (pS: .16t) : (n\ l \ rhur non.one.r \ .d ( t r : l l ) lv Spf i r r \on(rhrte. . . t jc lct . r r8u.s. r \ hrrd | , rlhr rc l lsroos.onsck)unr! \ r n i ' r r l , hxrt hxct ro rhc Lr.rrD r 'n. rnd r , ,s. .

' r ! \ l lc r \ r lur \ . b i \ js ot | l \ l ] I th. bur. h. { r ! Ie\ l \ . lhrs sr l t t . r \ .

i l nr l l huRlcn.d r i rh rn unrcc(r jc, te( i st tn rnlo r l terc rnrtr I lcyor, lr l ' \ . 1, , r , . . r r r ' r r ,Jr l / .* r t r r r r1r | . r , , r

' , . , , . , , . , , . , , , . , , . . , , , , ; , . , , .

lu l ly rc.(^ered I le rc l igr( ' r \ cons.rdur)css t i ,18els. h i^\ercr. rh l r rhLr.r l lcr \on ol rh. r .surrc. l i (nr r \ t ( , sh(tr \ rhr t lhc r . r t r r r t i (nr rs nol r lr tscl l \ r rn l r .ml. rs (ul r \ d^ 'drr t r f \cnl In thc I lc o l rhc eonr.rLLnrt ! or hctr t \ tA $hrn c i \ r reosor/ .d u\ su.h . \ \hrr r r \utr \ r . r . r r rrhr :

' t r r t r \cnshn.nr ol Strnl . t i . , j r ! . ( rn{ nd ot rh. rd.r or . r l f

conrDtrrrr \ . rnd rr \ r . I |on Nrth r lq l rd ro \ rJ.x. , \ o l thc Not i r ) fb!r r r lhfr l r r rc c\rL.mal ' r \ ind \ r r8! t rnr ! . rhc hrnonc,. t n)nnner ol t I ln I r r rst n ol

'1s inrnrc( l i r ! \ rn( j rhc fon sprr i tur t rc.oIecl i (nr o i . .

l r f f ,osc( l rndr! u l l t isur. r r j r t ot r ls t rn, ( t ,sr .1.)r) [c8ct rhcr.rar,sh,Ns h($ In inr tcn r t , \ l i ! r . l rgrn\ . ( )ns(knNne\\ k, ! Lr !ot \ . t iIn fu i . l \ l j r \ ron. . r qu.n r{ j \ rb(nrr ( l r \ r ' \ t r r ' . . or ' rhc \ r r r ! t r . . r \rx 'sc(t h\ rh( I r r !hr(nrrenr

l l r { ! l rh.r runr, k, rh( , ioLl l j r ! (n rht tnrLr\ , r \ . ] r r ( , \ ,c hi^,, r r i r t i r , r . t le.r \ . r ter \N,I j \ . ! (nI f . rhte $ I hr \ fhr t , \ , )dr cr t \ r r r j ( ltor i r l l f r i !ue\ thtn th \ d, \ . r n. \h( t r \ \ ho$ rhr\ r r r r r (n ret , ! j , jLr .lhoushl hr \ ,L l r . rd ' ' { !e.(e(t .d n l r . r f \ r f r ( | |ng rhe ( j r r r rn( t r ( ! r \ hcr\ \ f fc\ \ . r .c rr l r fNrmnfr . r . rn .u\ t $( t . In f , !eact ! rhc \vrJ- th. i1r \ r (qurr . ( l r r I \ l ( ) h( : r t fhf l . r r ! ( l b! \ f . .ot . r r r rc fhrL(\oI jh!h(Ne\.r , r \ r l l .1, 'c , 1,1 u, . ,1" r l j r \ , (h. t r j .c rn f ion(r t ! . ( . .pr ! . rI f i rn\ . hot ( r r r In \ .h. . r . le \ | r . t r r tu.c rhnrIr t r ! . In r | ( \ l .n j r l \' r . j r re\cnt l ' ln ! l nrnr t l l lcr . t i ! f r r l l \ In i .nn\ { ) l ( , r t r t rhL l hrrrn( l ( n\ l lhe Sor_ rDd or ( ; . ( t i . r r rn! rhc \or td_ rnd ,n lh. l r | . l tc l f i' f rh. r l ' . ' r r r l . r J, t r , , , . r r t ( . {Jr t r t r . . , ( , r , , . , I . , I t . :J,

reIn\ . Nt i rch ! r \c\ n\ . ro i . \ r r !htc dir i iculrrcs ln t i (1 rhcrr t ru.

192

lplLrne{ s csscnlrr l l t 0hrk, \ophre! I . imp|err l r r r i l t . t rDg rn In\Ll l r l

D thc $rr in {hrch r.nvl|) r reali/.d In rl'6 \orld. So. rcg!tu|'n!

|) d.r ot cr@tton. llc8cl connnenll: Thrs .rcrlnrS ts prclu!.-

F|nf \ troftl l-or rhc Norknr rlself in rl\ .h!'lulc '|tremcnl

ll's:

l t l l lcgcl thu\ sc$ n prr . l lc l bcrwccn his th i losophical c la lm rhrr

lltt 'i

Inl;flncd hy rcrson. rnd lhc ( hnsrrlrr r(ior of the creatidr.

* thy ( i , instrnt i . lcs l l inrscl l In lhe sor l ( i l - rkc{ isc. lh. story ol

I h l l (ontc) \ thc sr t In $h,.h thc thml lng {rbtc. l eomcs k) l ic l

lb|cd lionr rhc $orl(1. ,nr(c h. trie{ l(' rtll.rr or rt. Jnd lirl.rts hrs

-.htc

lhn,rpron ,n nitur.

Intrn.dr lc c\rstctrc( nkl t l rn l \ ru \ Inr , , r l ' ( r ' ! I r . or nrcrc ic l lnrro eors. i r iusncss ol tho0Shl i rnd. morcotcr.

tEcrusc rhe rhoughl srcnrs l ionr Inrnr.r l r rc\ n i \ n, t tkr^\ llhoosht. r r rsnol tore l ino$lcdSc. bul lhoushl rhrrr rschurged$r lholhcin. \ \ rnd r \ . thcrcl i ' rc. lhc scl l :ot t , \ ( ,1 rhooghr ol (nr{ l rn l| ! r l \ l rn i ' t rcknr l l ) rhouglr t or In rhr\ $r ! th n on.. ,d/r

tpa. , / . sr lhouuo\ ocfe\ , r \ . rhrr he I (^r rh. l ( {nr o l h( ' t rgxl . rc*r th h. , $ l l lhnufh fh, . l ,ng rh. l rur ,n rhf r r ( . l l fosle( i lcol(rn\ l r r ( l | \ '1. $( i Nr: t \ t . l lcd l r ( rn rhc \ r . t r . o l , , t r )e.n.c.l i , , r r \ r rorc $hrLh yrclJed r ls l iur l \ s,rh,rr l (n l . r i ( l l i f ' il l ' r r |s. . r r ( rn lh. ! , r ( l (n $rth i l \ u. i r r t r ! ' srrh r l i rnr or(r t lc \ !or r r ' l , r l len Nh(h. ] ,k! rhe. \ tnf"rr i \ ( r ) . bcl()ng\.r ! r f , t r . r . n) f r ( lur( lhrnLrrg rnr l n() l l , r l I f \ , ,1r{ . ( l t ! r t r ( l f \ lh.rh,r j r r r r . t ' I rh( \ . rk, , r ( i rh. ] . \ .1 ( , r t ) | r r r . rh f l f ! ( i , . . ! , , . \

r , " rurc.rhin[ ,n! \ i \ . , r r r ( i r l r . r . . , l f i ! i r rh i r ' ! rLr r t , \ r r , r r

l ! . h\ { t I . r r , f ! ( t r , l l l i f ,xrr r l . ( r i rcr i r ' , '1 r . r ! t ! r l l ,nr , ,1\i rF(\ ' , ( r r ! !u l i i f l r ' r , l l l l l '1 . | ]e l l l { l ' l r l ) . l legel l ! 'N( l 10

tn h,n rrarrr oJ r l i ( r \ \ rLrs lhr l t rc( ' . . r1|r . ( l ,e l , ! ,od \ t r i l i {h l

- t t t

r r l r . . l r ( r r t r r rng lh. nrc.hrrrc\ o l t | l ! r l .n l rof . or (nt l \

L. i !n, r , ' [ , ' \ , . r , { . \ . ! , i t l . r . \crc r . r , , r , / , . { , . ' . but nrr f l \

Faloh rh.rr J, \ ( ro r( ! , ! t rn i h, rhe t r r i i r i $hl .h r . r l r fu. h. lL( l

- .1. .1

r l \ urdrr l \ rn! \neeul ,n, \ . rd.x. . ,df . r \ $hr(h fould rhen he

, i rn i l (s nr\ \ r , l ! ,nr f \ rJr . \ \ t r in thr lo\ ' t t r rcr l rh(r ,8hrInf i r Ig (nree r |nrr i lo lh. s lor \ o l lhc cruc l r \kr i r r r ( l ru:r f lcL

lr | . l l { r . l . rAUr\ r l i i r ( hrn rnrr \ ( iL,ghl 1o he r , ( l ,srnr In shrrh lhr

l9 l

tHt Dtat lct tc ol tc l tGtoN

divir i! t.Cn 8 livbg wi6i|r $c lpirind cornrtrloity, .!d thus asbclini .ny wholly EunctodcN CLrrrrti 'Thc d.oth ofthc Mcdialdir lh6 &|lh lot ooly of hi! no n /a, .lpcci or ol hit Fniculs. bcin8.for-lclf, ||ot ody of lhc .lr.!dy dcrd hu* dilpd of il! dtcrtialBcin& bur d.o of tb absnac,loa of th. divin B.iU' eS: 476)Howcvcr, Hcgcl !'8rE lb8l il ir hrrd foi dE Chriltir| corftnunity todo awry with .ll !!pcct! of Lsnrccd€lc. in il3 rrligiou! thought, soit thcr.foc mntinuc! to hold thrt full niionrl insight, which HcSclscca a! thc impcBtiv. bchind rcligiou! comciouln.ls, is only lo bcgaincd in lhc'bcyotd'. lt Ocrlforc rcrmins for philosophy to Nhowhow this infight can trc gaincd in the hcrc and now:

Thc world b indc€d r'.nprr.itt rcconcilcd wiih thc divinc Bcinsiand rcgrrding thc divinc Bcing il is known, of cours., that rlrrcognize3 thc objcct as oo longcr dicnd€d from it but !s iden.ti€rl wirh ir in its lovc. But for sclf-cotuciousncas, this irnmcdiat.prc!.nc. still h&s not thc shrF of Spirit Thc Spirii of thLcommuniiy i! thus in irr irrncdiatc conscioosncss dividcd iiomils rcligious consciousncss, which dcclurs, it is tnE, that trt ?,r?rwr lhcy at no! dividcd bul lhis m€r.ly trrlli.t uity Fnot Gllizcd, or hE3 nol yct bccornc an cqually lbsolut! b€ing-for-sclf.

(PS:47tt l

194

!tfrulii

Phllorophyar dlalectlc(PhLnomenotogy,C, (DO.) Abrolute Knowing)

fnovving

chapicr. u/. $w that for Hcgel. it mrdechim lhat therc mi8ht b€ comnon groundtlligion and philosophy, in so far as both in

fonn (&s Chnstianity and Hegllianisrn) lrill allo* us to find sarisfacrion in the

to b. 'rt hom.'. Howev€r, whil€ in Chris-lh. idca ofrhis satisfaclion finds expr€ssion in

md m),ths of r€ligious representation, intbis id€a is given a more literal m€aning.

that preve.l us codprchending lhc{ forn ar€ resolved.Llegcl calh lhisinsight 'absolute knoe,/ing'. and thc

that achieves it he calls 'sbsolutc

mfft{nd

ffi,ill|n!ililli

eflilli

giiilfirlr

'Th. conkat of this picture-thinking lat thettligionl is absolute Spiri( and all th8r nowto b. donc b to suo€r!€d€ this m€.c form. or

lhi. tclonSs lo.oa.to6re$ ar rzcrr. it!dr!{dy havc yicld€d ilself in lhe shapc of

(PS: 479).

l'

PHILOSOPHY A5 DIAIECTIC

At the end ofthe Prero,n€nolog,'. it is now cl€ar 10 consciou\ness how this absolute knowinS is to be achi€ved. For it no\understands that it has fail€d to find satisfaction in the world becauseit has come lo the world in the wmng way, adoptirg limited concet.tions that mult be made mor€ complet€: absolule l owing lherefor

-lqlates to the idea of complete or unirnp;ired rAtional cognition oi rhc

-_ world, rather illan to knowledge of som€ non-worldly entity (1hc

-e6-sdlute'). Heg€l thus briefly sketches ways in which consciousnesmust leam to bring thcse limited conceplions togelher, recapitulatingthe various slages thal the dialeclic has aheady rak€n. He begins wi0iConsciousness and he argues that it should now be apparent to !\.as phenomenological observers, ihat the standpoints adopted b!consciousness (Sense-ce.tainty. Perception, and Understandins) wcrrone-sided. and ftat thc truth lies in seeing how no one ofthem doe:juslice lo the w.ry in which individuality, particularity and universnlir)are related in rhe object:

Thus th€ object is in part mnedtdrd being or, in general. aThinsconesponding to imm€diate consciousnessi in part. an othen g

of itseli its relalionship ot beins-hr'dnarher, and heing-li,thefi ;.e. determinaleness conesponding to p€rceptioni and rtrpan erse,.?! or in ihe tbrm of a universal corrcsponding r0lhe Understanding. It is, as a totality. a syllogism o. th€ molement ofrhc univeBalrhrough derenninalion to individuahy. rralso rhe relerse movcmenl f.om individuality throLrgh supclseded rndi!idualily, or through dcrermination, ro the univer$lIl is. thereibre. in accordnnce with thcsc three deteminarior'lhal consciousness must know lhe objcct rs itsclt

(PS: : l l l l ) l

Now, it is nor immedralely clear from thc Phenonenolop what tl\\conccption of individuality, paniculanty nnd universality as applied t(,our thinkins about objects involves: bul on my r€adins lhis is nolsuQrising, because wc should expect lhis positive account ro bc clNborated ehewhere, in the Zoai. (as indeed it isi see EL: llil6{J212. pp.221 71. For turther discussion, see Stem 1990: 54 76. anllWinfield l99l: 51 81. The Phenomenolos is thus a r/a ,cgrr!/for consciousness. showing how anythins less than this compl.\

illtLLll

196

L.xamined in lheir own dSht:

197

will fail. and bringing to light the dialectical limitations

Lv. broush about this fsilure. lt has therefor€ s€i/ed its ess€n-

td{ogical and notivational furction, of leading us on to iheihcr€ th€ positive doctrin€ is systenatically elsborated in lermscrlcgories and thought-fonns.

Lil|wise, HeSel discusses lhe various standpoints of self-Reason, and Spirit. reminding us how each on its

Fvcd to be incomplete and that whai is now requircd is to lindof uifying lbem into a more complex whol€: These are the

ofwhich the reconciliaiioD of Spirit wilh its own conscious-

tlotcr is composed: by themselves they are single and s€parate,I ir lolely their spirinral unity thal constiNles the power of this

irion. The last of $ese rnoments is. however. necessanly

PHIIOSOPIIY A5 DIALEC'I IC

r|liry nself and, as is evidenl. it binds them all into ns€lf

'at2). As Hcsril rnakes clear. lhe role oflhe Pnero,'erolos' has

5 pui rh€se'single and separate' mo'nenls alongside oneto sho\r where each is inadequate wh€n laken on itsown:'ourh.re has b€€n simply lo aarler trScrier the separate moments.

at the end of the Phenontenologt dislinclive. as it10 undenake Screncer that is. a rcflcctivc cxaminalion ol its

in an altempt to overcome lhc kind of one+ided posit'onsiusl travetsed. lbr such a Science lo be Dossible. consc'ou$

t||usl have come to scc, through a process ol selt-'examinrlion,

I ctn idivc al a view oflhe world lhal will lndkc lhe world llllywherc until then il has appearcd lhcn lo conscrousness.

8ci.ncc. by takrng us lhrough lhe calcgorics conesponding to theforms bf conscNusness porl.aycd in the Preadd<r,nar, cantoachiev€ the kind ofdialccticaloullook lhal absolute knowrng

8y showin8 us how these categories have operutcd whenin various world-views, lhe Pre,,,r"roloa) therefore

of whioh in principle exhibits the liie of Spiit in its entircty'

llcgcl then goes on to consider what makcs the standpoint of

'!h€ Scienc€ of Knowing in rhe sphere ofappearances (PS:

ltt pr€paratory role hali.g been complel€d. we are now readylo the more abstracl level oflhc logi., where these cateSodes

tlI

i

II

PHIIO5OIHY AJ DIATEC'IC

Spiril d|.rlfor!, h$in8 won thc Notioo, dbplaF il5 €x'srlnd rDov.mmi in thh cthcr of it! lifc snd b Scl€zcs. In rlb. monrarts of it8 movcmco! no longcr cxhibit tl|.m!.llcrlpccific tldp€r o/ coarciorrr,r"$, but - sinc!diffdmcc hrs rctuncd into lhc Sclf - |! rpecr6. ortorr andthcir orS.nic a€lf-8round.d movcmcni.

In this way, HcScl prcplr.s us for his tiansition within the

Con<lution

fron rhe 'shep€s of consciousnds' of the Phenonenolost, ri'spccific Nolions' (lh. conccpts or caLgorica) of thc ao8ic, andfor Scieoce in its Durc rnd abstract form. 'in thb eth€r of its lifc

Pcrhrps becausc H€gel was himself a historicist. who b€lievrd t'e.ch individuf is . . . a child oI his tinei n\ts pnilosophy, too. Fown ,ine conprchenled in thorghts' (PR Pr€fice. p. 2l). rr

thouShl (Cro$ |9 |5 ). How much of thc Prefun.,roftrAr. then. sh\we concludc is lost to us in this way?

cuslomary for commcnislors on his worl to concludc by askin!far his thouSht has signiffcance mcrely in its own hisrorical conrcand how much of it conlinues to b€ rclcvanl for us. For manv of Hc!(lworts. including rhe Plen |'t"rorogv. ir has b€€n suggcsied thar rh(w€ rnay admire them, we cannol now lak€ them in the way llchimsclf Intendcd rhem to b. taken. as our peBpccrive rs crucEll\ .'fund.mentally differcnt from his (post-Darwin, post-Marx. n,Auschwilz, post-modem, or whatever): we must thercfore distinslclearly b€tween th€ 'rational kemel md the mysrical sh€ll' (K. Nl,1906: 25). b€tween whal is 'living and whrt is 'dead in H.!(l

Som. will clain lhal we cannot now take lhe Pr?ron.x"ns€rioully as a whole. precis€ly bccaus€ the centml Hegelian karound which it is conltruci€d such as Spirit', 'absolute ideallsfl'and absolul€ knowing - ar€ too eirnondinary to hlve plauscurrcncy io modcm philGophical consciouincss. Thcs. are src'rconccpls rooted in parb of Heg€l s background that are l€ast ac(c'sibl€ to us (his Romanlicism. Chnstian myslicism. or rationrlrsoc

I lL l l

l9Er 99

(PS:

PHTLOSOPHV At OTALtCTTC

ld which lcd Hcgcl to adopt r po6ition in thc P""'o-

i absu/bcr! that t incr.diblc in ihc modcrn cootcxt (ci

t3t-46} otr this viru, whilc tha! nry tliu b' 'hings

| fu6 6c Phenoncnotog, - in i.s criti$F of o{tEr

rripl., o. r! a hiltoricd rn.lytis of dE cultunl snd

| ltSin! of tnod.mity - w. c.moi hop. to r'ctpturc ils

for r Dotitivc docfinc in 30 fat.t it intrinlic'lly

t ioblcmrtic notlon!.|.. howcvcr. ttrar such r histoncirt approach docs H'8Gl

5 f.ilin8 to interpr.l prop.rlv Hcgcl's undcrstanding of

I ard maling lheln rpF r tnot! Fculiar thrn lh€y rctlly

nuov curtt;r comm€ntltors now offer lo-cslled 'non-

rrdin3s oflcrms likc Sprrir'and'ldca rhat bring $cm

-

cuit i'p".'y p.op."tivcs lwhcrc Spirir i3 utrd'Btood

bdbiccrrvily, for e,Gmpl.: scc williams l987l Atd

[adings arc dismissed !s merely re_r'adings or r'con'

o{d rlso tc argucd tltar th€sc conccpts plry a ftt lcss

I Hcgcl's lhinki;g than miSht st firsl appcar' Thus' for

ar rciount I have offercd finve ot rhe Phenonenolos'

.houd lhat il is possibl€ to follow H€g€l's tcrl withoul

gllcepiion of Spirir being rcquired. €vcn if this rich

r.r fic onc he actullv held. we can leam from H€8cl'

I ir lcam is not everlrhing he actually tauSht

Nr. cv.n if il is admitled lhat the P,e,ot"oloal' is nol

hacccssible to us in this way as an independenl teil rl nas

abitncd lhat Heg€l's sysl€m as a whole remains alien to

lhi. *ill cut us off from the P/l?'du"ndli'&r al 'e3$

rn so

(r. I havc done) to inleSEte il inlo the syslem in Sener'l'

k in parricular. Thus. manv have claimed^that for ^theto remain living . it must b€ divorc€d from the first

-E cyclopedia, which is assurcdlv 'dead' R€asons for

b r,qt. out of hand in this wav vary' bul t*o are 'ommon-

h ii rhat ir h a producr ofessenlislisl metaphvsics which

d.dEc b€in8 from ess€ncc lh€ world frotn thoughti and

I tt tlhc di.lcctical m.lhod it cnplovs s'ls it sl odds wnh

of losic {such &! lh€ l6w of non_contradiction I on wh'ch

,l ;rv rel'€s (ct \tood 1990: I o, Given thE damning

rHr Lo50?Ht at otata(Tt(

indictr|c of drc loSr'c, thc commcoi.tor 6 rb Pheronen.would rpp!|r to fe . s||rt choicci cith6 tat Hcgcl sr his wordsnqi to nrcgnr. &c two tcrt!. whilc obbing $€ llncr of its vrtalor try to .void thid bix !t thc c@ of d@n\irahc Phen tderclol<lits lppdrrnt iordc rnd orgenizinS schcmc.

tlli

I

Now, h.rc i! nor thc plrcc !o str.mpt io offcr a Inor€ positaccout of lh€ lr8tc, but obvioutly this would bc onc wry our oldilcmma wc h8ve jult trc€n poscd. For, orcc a8aiq manytors $ould hold that thc ,oaic itsclf is ncilhcr !o .mcraphysical r.ss€nlialbt, nor !o biz{.re in i$ hethodology, as it is h€re assumcdb€: tu lhrt casc, thc Preronerologr is not ncccssarily moribund c!when its rclalionship to thc ,oglc is r.ten s€riously. As I hope ro h,sho*rl givinB thc Pi"rotneraldgy an i roducrory role ro rhe 1con€eivcd ofas r di.lcctical invcstigalion ofc.iegories 3hows ir k)more than Just a coll€clion of obs.wrrioos on phitosophicalor on poliiical .nd soci.l lhcory, or on rhc problcms of nodembecau!. I s.c no rcason why lhc aoSic int.erclcd this way jhoutd'dead' !o us" I havc not f.h ahsid io associaic thcsc two rexrs dirccr

A third hisioricizing srSum.nt lo b. coflsid.rcd concems noralien natu€ ofth. conccpb H.gcl cmploys in lh€ pn€'one"o/oer.of the othcr paris of thc sysrcm with which lhc plerondotogt c,\t1linked but rrthcr the aoal of his whol€ proj€ct, and the uodcrtyif,glook and arpiritions which rhar goal cxpress€s. tr is this, p€rhaps nxthan anlrhinS els€, thrt may be fck to sepffate us liom Heget: inclaim lhat to him who looks at rhe world rrtionalty the world l(rationally back', and in his desirc to enable us lo fe€t .ar home . Itcmay seem profoundly our of touch wilh conremporary sensibiti|(See Geuss 1999 lor a helnr'ul and lucrd a(counr or how think(^as Schop€nhau€r. Nicldchc. and Adomo cane io reiecl rhis lrrtrTo us. the goal ilsllfmay app€ar lroublinS rn ns apparenr quierismcons€ralism. lrhile Hcgcl's hop€s rhar ir could be achieved maynaive, or foolish, or plain s€lf-deludinS: and. elen iflhe gmt and rhopes arE accepte4 Hcgcl's sugS€stion rhat. phitMphv tandsciencc. or an, or r.li8ion. or politics on rh.ir own) can accomplish \aims nay sccn lbsurd. and lihlc more than s function ofhis overbkambilioos for his own cho6.n calccr as a systemadc philocopher.

ri|ll200

rAsr rhar rhe Phenonerclogr will continuc lo belong

20r

PXILOIOPHY AS OIAITCTIC

dadion is r larg€ onc. rnd pcrhaps mor! difncult lo &sscss

llly rgpcan. For, onc. .g!ia Hcgcl's posiion c'o be

i *.y ttt"r ln"y tvoid somc of tll€lc conc.mr (cf

lJ-41). whil€ it could tllo bc lrgucd thrt (hc flith

Fo8rrs! th.l HcScl's Projcct is stid ro cmbody ir ml

ua (.libou8h pcrhlps hi3 grndio{c conctPtion of Philos_

Gitrugined. lt t€€ms lik ly. rhercforc' ihat &s long as

blans rcmrin our pmbletns. I rs tofic living prcs.nt mther

lCrn 1999). Fortunatcly, thcrc is no nccd to rcsolv' thclc

laorsc while H€gel's dm as I wholc mry b. ooc of

', rnd whil. lhis may well secm unrcalizabl€ or cv'n

5 u!, it do€s not in my view affcct the valuc of thc

, whos€ negativ€ rolc has trcen lo show just bow btrd

is io achicv€. and whst ot'strclca stand in our way.

lcbm s good deal fron Hc8€l's critiquc of whal bg

clains $ar aspit! to provide ssdlfacrion for

h li Phenonenologr, *hil€ res.rvin8 judgcmcnt on

tim!.lf can avoid thes€ shoncomin8s in lhc positrvc

b builG on lhis apProach in the svstcm propcr' (In lhis

'! words ofret a DcrmatEnl chrllcngc to lhc HcSclian

ica s€rves lhe end of reconcilcmcnt . but nonc of

clained by [HeBel'!! absolutc id€alism and no

I.|rdn d consisc - has stood up. whether in loSic or io

hi.tory' (Adono 1973: G7).)Itc. this is not 0o deny that cenain aspccts oflhe Pleto'

Ltr it vcry much a work of its time. so thsl pans ofit ar'

ll.lprical inter€sti but for such a dense and In many ways

work. this is the case surpnsingly rarelv lfor exarnple'

Obscrving Reason s€ction. where Hegel s focus is obvr-

!.icntific outlook of his pcriod. lhe /)r,,1.'n hc is inler-

dr w€ can still rak€ se.iously and reintlrprel In our own

I of boursc, a hisbricist cririque of anv work ha( its own

,|!hrs 30 offen happ€n€d *ith tlegcl, dcspite th€ rep€atcd

lh.t his time has inevocably pass€d (bv Mar sl malcnal-$rs, or by analylrc philosophcrs. for €r€mplc) he

tlomed to sp€ak lo us once again, in wsys lhal were

regssf$qffi

ttarrorr.rDbgy In .oibnr FiuL turo. in BcnE. HcScl hrd t r'|!ha.d

?ri!.r r cdnrna ay d| t poliricd p6npl .r byCjl, whhi w$ publithcd tMy|lndy

l79t' rff.r Hcs.l h.d bn his po3ition in Bcm. ard$||won ir Fnnrfrll.b no F!p.r tymryn fd Ga!, in EnSlLh. md

firy b. imrllhl.d .qully s spi.ii or 'mind' N iiconnolrtiotu of both. I will scn rally os. tpirit .

i|.i,rrion in Cr|fu thrt is onctr ovcdoolcd inhlitn bdvccn 'ryi$d.rdl' (Mir8 sicrEc s

I body of ortrtruld lmwlcdac) 3d 'Notu.-(m.aoing n tunl scimc. .! this t rm i3

I lhi! b llF md.nrg ed in Millcr's English t'|n$bior, ol rhe Ph.aoncaoh'!4. s hich k th. on. t Efe'

is th. trarul.ti@ of thc c.|lta Lmh k inDotunr ro rslizc dut rh.rc is .

lDlid to phFicr, chairty. .d biolos/). ln cl.in-lt d|.l hi! ptilor.phy c6tirur... .cinc., rh.|dor!.Hcfd ws! rE.ly cl.iming thrt it is ryst.dtic, not

203

,t

thdl rl bcrrs !n\ more dir.cl conrtaa\on trrlh lhcse .D)I'lcu nnnrr.In!c\rrSrlron Inro rhc nat!rnl uon{l(l Nd/r.\ l9ltl: lt l0 Nhn!- |'hrkxo ical Droblotrs rrc on$trnd.ri|lndns ho* somcthrn! r{ or crn b€ poss'hl. lk){ ir rr to*'r ,rnr us k' hNc fBc {iU. supF\rn! rh.r nlt turions rr..dusltt ilLr,nrn.d 'Rudomncss. ! lso. scchs no mor. cong.nir t i so hos r \ t r , ,r i l l r ( r (n, . ' \ jhhl l l ! , * h r t , \ jhh.rh ' r . t i . r thtur\ . ! IZcno s irlunrnlsl tlo* r\ rr nos\rhlc ktr sonrelhrn! io hc lh. ..0 ,lhrr8 lnnn.nc rne ro rnothcr, lnn^rFh rh.nsr l ' Ih. l i ! f ,n ot th( ,qu.!rnr!

's h.$ r\ oN rhrr8 lrxsrnlc. !r\cn lor nrpnonnlr (cir.i

orh.. rhrt\'Somc \brcnr.or\ i, .r. rr. aslnrd or .cfr.d o' r,rr.,ktr !r.m.d. nnd rh.r. rr n r.n\n{ l^-t*ccn rhr{ srJr.trurs rN Mfl,nrl.nrnt /'r lrrrl' rlJpenr tL' .\(lunc t \ holdrn! ruc r.r u! rrnn I ,I dt ' t 'dt l , t r r l th l t t t tnt t , t sD.e r l jc { t r ren. t r t / , . r1{) rs r(cct(r$r h.. rhc qucst on ol how /, r\ tosrhlc. gi!cr n\ rftnrrnr c\e rL, i

'h \.. ho\e t un hr lru.lrtro lhc\c rptarcDr c\dud.rs) \ n, \.,hotr l l ' rn! \ l j l loS.th.r ' lh^

t ,h , \othr.r l undcr{ i r (1|nC. ' jn l

,l rnnonl n.") t .ucrr r . rsknr J ronr l txbrh| \ . N. I r ln ' l . nr l l r .

1\ \ rh nrL / ' / ru, , r rdnl(r . \ . r h th.1r! , r1 . ! r t r .&ln! r \ .1!r ! r .\s^r l Nl \ l tnfunch h.r . Lr h,( , . ( lL! n l rn. * h qh.n | . \ r hL.n r .L . .'err . roR th. , t r ! or ' ronjn. tnfh\ \ ( .endrng\ ol rhc / , { r l , rhc f ln l hn.r .hrrrct .a/r l i { r r or th r i f f ( i ich. $r th lunher rr t . rLr t r . .set $ ( .nhsr! lL){)r 1 l l I' \urL{ ' r r ' fon. . ! r0 lh. r . ' fN u\rJ rn In8tr \h l i rn, ' tuN nr ,( icnn. ( ,nJ &!,r / / ( onrr f r ' r . r l r nuc nrtrnr l lo\ t . r lur l' . !nkr i \ . r l ! , h. l . t , t r r l \ r i r rn\r \ r l 'c r l . ( r rh.r l l t r l r t o\c\ rhF.r .r r .hn(.r l t . f ln \ . t rh.r ! . ! \1. ! r t r r r , r t rurc\ rhe r 'u(r rh, r t r . Douf( , fnn. t r r

'c l . ! . \ tL j rh. \ f rh / , . (?r / / ! r \h.h c0lr ' rLt . ! r \ L, ( i , r / ,

r r .nfrnf r , r r ,At or .n\o f t . r \ \ . rL!" . f r t t r r rc l rnt sr t rnr | !d! . r th. rr r \ r I ( l r l l r r 1.rr f r i t r r \ i l L l \ . r \ . . f , t r1L.ulx j . . t r rmlr \ ' ( jL| i l r l ( r ., ! r r . rhcr t rn( ls rhr, i \urrr l lu r [ ] t \ ot , / . , &! , r / /I or r r i . lJ t t r l , \ .n r \ rn [ (^1 | l ( t r ] r .nn. n) s. . r [e r . rsr t r r hcr$. !

l r ( !nnnr! { , rh ihf \ l .b[ hr \ \ . . r rhf t rnr \ r^rhnn o, | ' \ | ntr lhr .n i .dr ( ( l ( ( . r rn. ! rhr t . ! rk! , t r rnr ' (n r t r . r ! l r r t r . 1 ' t r l ( I )k l r \ ,\ \ t r r r r . l r ' ! r r$[rrhh.Arus t r t ) . \cehnlJ t9elurt l lnt . t r \ t ] l r0r)Lt!r 9. .lriL) r0. md ,t7r 9I I l lobcd\ L)rr 78. ' lh! r . runrhF frnr l r r I t r ! f t . (h.h Brklr .11irr , \ l r [ \ r f ! , t r r$ rrd cr ! '1rrul \ . or cors(k{]5ne\\ d rr \ l r thfr . r .

ttr onno\ilnn d,/ rt' r,r,r ol rndtr'dualil! rnd 8.n.ralil! ThL trxll

v'dul h mlrcnrl \Dluhfllt. lhe /rr .r ,!t,: rhc lcnct 's coNefr,

r!1., t.$. p(v.nlk,n lor'te.lll_ - shclher it h. thc rcaltiy ol.\I'.'

|rcfr., of motulir-!. or ol |x'lirc\. d, s'dc! m$t play thcir I'an. A

d|ng rs nol onlt thc c$n{'|. ol! 8enn5. '|\

i rrnguhr p'Ne ol mdllcr

A n ^on is nor N.(1, r tun.r(,n. he or shc ,s ! l,v,ns esh'and bkxxl

l|xjividual A nol't'cil lcnd$ rs not nrcrcly thc.cnrrscnlatlve ol a gn)un,

lE or sh. ,s !n cnrtrcly uniqr( .hanctcr s,rh uniqlc r'eals and ho!'cs.

8ul. htond .rlhcr ,n rlt lso \idcs. lhe rcrllty ol (hrngc r\ r unrly. lhc

urtt ol licdoD. [J.rtr. nnil r.,$n:

llcscl hnr*-lf [r*hl!hN lhL Nl(rnrcrl rnc ol lhc PEl..c 'n

hrr

FrblNr! lnnrunrcmcnl ntr thu l'rMdk dl,){r rhrt nnnlrr.d ,n \ anoh

F.rdrul \ rn lN{)r l \c ! loNrr. l99N:6l l ) ln lh. c l .cc rh. r t r lhor

cxt ' l r rns hr\ \ r . { \ .oDe.mrn! $hnl sccnr n ' hrnr rr N the nctd\ or

tnrlosophy rr rs prc\Lnl slrtuipoiir. ind rn rLldrlkn' (oirtftrng th.

rcnrntrni rnJ nonscnsr ol tlrrlon)drL.ll lonnuh: shi.h clmntlt

InJ cs thc tjrgnrl) or thrnMth!. rnJ 8en(rrllv ror(cnnng Nhnl r\

ca{ntrrl in thrl(ao|h! .nrl r\ nud\ -

. 2 The dialedi( oI the obie<t

In th^ htt.r rLmrrl' rLSndln! thc conlrr\l h.lsr.r il]|r.[cnsrnr nr(l

.onrn.chrnsur. llcr0l rs trr ll.r rhrrr.lrir/rir i!! ltrr'Nr rlliluJc lo rhr

f'nn ol coisri,!atres sc .rc t\trnr rtrr!. r.'llrer lh.rn s.fsr (cnrrnll

r t* l t bd bccr! ' t l l rgcl rs r l r t r rn is ( . r r r t r i r ! tnnrf l fu^.1\ . \ In th.

lnt \ r t r \ Ihr r , { r { i ' r i t r ( \ \ $. . t r f , ih\ . r \n i ! . I ' i , ' \

h. rn l . rcd

thrt n. r ln i nrrrnr r , f l l . ! , t . r . r r l r s.n{ ! r ' r . r ' r r \ ( r l r rhr \ \ . r \

3 The dialedic of the subject

! r hN hrn\Lr l r r r . Mrl ler t r . ( . L, iJshrt . t r lnr r t ! h.r . . h! l'Munrr \hrn rnd \ .^rulr ' , t r Nl ls l . r rn( t \h\ . hr \ r h. .omc nrtru

u\ul fl I:nF||\h n((orrh ,n rhrs s.clur. ljerhrl\ trr onicr l,) i\,!tl rh.

nhlcndrnS r ' \o l . , {nr{ i r r )n\ o l \ l '11.r ' \ r .nt l r rn! o l A,{ , r^ ' r l / / .

rhrci {rcrns ho nn.0 nrcrel! ri th. \rfl{ or \(^.!il. rianhrnd. ot

l ,

204 205

r | Ota9

th. dhhcd< of f|.rorlI g.g.l *! d.loe b ris.dil8 tt|l bo.h 6. Eif.d pairin or i|!

G(t& d &.6! dmilt FTcctitt of iidividdi|.ic Rdo, !nbolh oc.rid.4 .Iil ct|r |dnc ry..}.tit of rhc tlro n r!q|ird: cfSdilLr 19671 23,1:

'^rc nd ta 6ft. dr8.. lrhid e. cj d.irgtlhr in .I anptr.id l('of,l.tc [r.V io hotd wuimlrdy fo. thc s.neEld.licloF|cn of hrntr culnrd(l) Th. obj.ct lrrld| b.for! r! d . $llot , trr co||nr.d ntul

nuid.(2) W. l.p.tu prnicolt chrdcricic! rnd distinguilh: ou.

h|owlcdgc B tw ditrrra hd ilotxcd rnd ti,nitld.(3) W. @ii! *l|tt w. hv! 3.pdd.4 ud dr *hotc Irnd\

D.ro|! a .gnin, no tot|g.r coIfild. hdrcvfi, bd ilun!.rt.d fmm all lidcs.

Thc Or! f! fMd rlEtn&ivc! in rlE ffsr of rh.* rDE oh&\c\Wc fld dr!.1v6 in rh r.cond. Tt rrri.( rrr,..!foc. w. mr!nill hop. fd. sd whm ir comcr m sl|.lt m toDgc y.d n,thc Crt b to r.tm.'

Thc t.m 'crhicrl lifc' h rh. now lt|nded Ergthh tsdhtion of rhrC.nn n cm Slrrt Lr, wbich dcrivc! iiom s/re, m.$i.a .cll'ron,.r tid of h.bit d rnod. of cordEr tiollowcd by | locid grcup andr.grd.d a 3cnint do*n rtE dl.3 for dffir bch.viM. H!8.t ch.n..i..isricdly dtuinguilhcd bctwd Srrtii.tt"n rd Voatr,rr (tnontit! ).which he N.ci.rcd wnn KNnr. dd iaw G ln irdividurtislic cihi(.urvcd at by ulon md coru.icrc. (ct pRr gl3, p. 6l dd 9150.o. 195).

Th€ dialecti< ot RallgionI As Hffii! 1997: ll. p. 649 poinb our. .r.v.sl.d' i, ,olr|ewhar iru4cu

mtc a t tr.rul..ion for rhc rhitd fortn of r.tigiot8 cd$cio{sK, r, |h.Gcm.r word u*d by Hcr.f i.nd,t@ierh .b .ote.t r,,vhictli! nor. lik. 'nlrrif6t' d .nud. .vid.na: lhar is. ir lhi. forln ofEti.gon *h!r b imporien b rhar oodirg rbo{r tu k hiddG[ nor tt|.l tErr.ligiou f.i6 ir foud.d m r.v.l.rion. Fd €e of rcfcmcc, I havck.pa ro rh. Milld rtrnlLtiotr. bur rhis cwclt shoutd b. kcDl in mindwlEn th. rcrm'noloty of .r.qLd rctigiq.

'r u!.d

205

a; rcrdihg

of srac. lnd acccssibility. d.trilcd suggca_fq finlhcr,rErding rclslin8 to crch chapi.r ur

dvcn !o work slrilable in Enghsh A shon Suidclit rdur€ in Cctmsn snd FEnch is providcd in

lrlt scction. For more extcnsivc biblio8rap$ica ofoirh. Phcmn..1oktg,, see Harris 1997: ll pp

srewan red.) ( 1998), 479 501. and slcwrn527 52.

Tha trenomettorogY in <onten

H.sel\ IiJi und w'r,d:bcat and mosl rccent intelleclual biogmphy of

i3 Pinkard 20ma. lbr a dclailcd snd magisl€rislof thc dcvelopnent of Hegcl's thouSht up ut il

Fblicdion of the Pi4o,nstrdloal, s€€ Hanis l9?2

Haftfu 1983i fot r synopsis s.c Hrrris 1993. Luti.s

rcmsins a classic trearment For an rcccasiblaof th€ inicll.cual and cullural issues $lplng

TMEr!rfrffilrffi

ffiiil'\l1

lrrilil

*tll

, . r , l l!rlrri

icd dcbrte in Heg€l's period. s.. aeiE r 1987

207

FUiTH€i R€ADII{6

Ceneral ttudks of Heget's syskn:Thc following p.ovd. rccounrs ofHesct\ rhouahr !s a whotc an,t.plli|c of rhc Phenonenotogt wirhin ir rhar arc u!.ftl for 0|e bcSrnr,studcnt HoulSllc t99l, Houtgatc 2001, Robcns 1988:68 [iRoclmor€ 1993, Singer 1983. So 1969, Srcm l9t. For Hc8ct,t rminology. Inwood 1992 is a hclpfut rcsourcc.

For more derailed ard advanced jtudies s€e Fandtay 1958. ln$o,dlrsl f::fmy 1c65. pinkard te8s. pippin teEq. R€dd,n8 tvr^.Rosen 1974, Stem lcc0, Tsytor tq75.

Stu.lies oJ the Phqonenotop:Th€ foflowinS ofTer srudies of rhc phe,onen,logy as a whole that nrus€tuI to the b€ginning stud€nr: Ddeck tgtt. Fmnco 1999: 8t I t,,,Hanis 1995. Nonnan 1976, pinkard I999. pinkflrd 2000b, pippin te()r,Ro.kmore 1997, Solomon t993.

F!. morc advanced and derailcd studi€s see Findtay t977. Ftay t,)8.1.torsler 1998. Hanis t997. lteideSScr 1994, Hnpotire 1974. Karf,,1976 and 1983. Kojave t969, Lau€r t976, Lo€wcnb€rg t965, pinkrnl1994, Simpson 1998, Solomon t983, Stewart 1995. K_ R. Westphrl1989, and M. Wesrphat I998b.

On the Prelue ond the Inlrodu..tiin.The Preface and rhc lnrroducrion are discusse.l fu y in Dudcck lesl17 l i2. t la.r is 1997: I . pp. l0 207. Kainz 19?6: 54 6t. Lrucr te7()23 40 and 270 300. Lcwenbcrg 1965: I 22. RNkmore 19971 6 t.)Solomon tgl r :t7 jts. and M. $tsrphat tee8b: I 5lj. Nomrxrl98l :9 28 and Srewan 2UX): 3l 52 d;scuss rhc Inrroducrion bur n. l

For specialist sludies see AdclmanllcideSger 1970. Kaufmann 1965:w. Marx 1975, Sallis l9??. SchachrK. R. Westphal l99Eb.

1984, Gillcspie t9841 6-t-8.1.161 459. Lamb 1980: 1..11

1972. Srepelevich t990, anrt

208

nrns 1992: l4l 90

209

chlpter is dis.uss.d in Drdel l98l: 63'91. Flav

I9.-t0, Hanis l99s 2214, Hsrris t97: l. pp 208 315'1994: 45 128. Hyppolite 197417'1 l42,K,'ir:.z 191616l-42'

1965. 2t-74.llntet 1976: t'G89, Noimrn l98l: 29-45'

194:2G45. Pippin 1989: I 16'12, Rocklrrtc 1997:37-58,1998: 1 .10. Solomon 1983: 319 424, Stcwan 20d)i 53-101.

1998b: 59 I 20.

tc.ialist study of th€ Consciousness chrpter 15 a whol€. s€'

1912.

studies of the 'Sens€'cenainlv s€ctioo' s€€ Cnig l9E7i

9, De Nys 1978, devries 19884. Dulckheit 1986. La'nb 1978'

1996. Soll 19?6, and K. R. w€stphal 2000

f URiHER REAOII{G

2 The dl.l.ctl( of the obl.ct

St€wan 1996,l99Ea.

9l l19.

i$ studi€s of lhe 'Perceplion s€clion. see

1986. K. I. westphal 19984. and M wcstphal

rlist studies of lhe 'Force and thc Ljndentandins'section, sc€

1982. Fta! 1970. Gadamer l9?6a. and Munav ls72

3 th€ diale<tl. of ttre subi€<t

lr 4ffi6. Pinkrd 1994:46 ?E Pippin 1989: 143 Tl Rckmore

:59 79. Ro$n 1974: l5l-82, Shklar 1976: 57 69 SimPson

40-?4. Solomon l98l: 425 ?0, Slewan 2000i l0g4' M

1998b: l : l l8

t984: 8l l12, thrr is 1995: 3546. l l . r r is 1997i l .ppl16446't994: 129.{8. Hyppolnc 197'rr 143 215. Kain? 1976:

Laucr 1976: 9(1124. LocwenberS 1965: 75 l12. Norman

.o.{rahst stud|€\ see Adelman 1e80. Bemslein 1984. Bubidgc

f Duqudrc 1994. Gadamer l9?6b. Kellv le65' Kojevc 1969:

S.tf-con'i,uurn;s chrpre s dr.iu'\L,i In Dud.tl

Ncuhous€r 1986. Rauch and sherman I 999 | 5 5- | 60, wahl 195 I '

fUiTHTi XEADII , IG

Ihe dl.lac c ot Re6on

Thc Rcason chapl€r is discusscd in Dudcck t98l: t2t 84, Flsy t(r8lI 13-61, Hsris 1995: 47 50, Hanis 1997: I, pp. 447-621 and It. ppl-146, HFpoliG 1974: 219,120, K^lnz 1976: 98 D3. Laucr l9t(,125-76, l.,ocwcnberS l 5: l13 A4. Nonrun t98l: 6? a5, pint.,d1994: 7+-114, Rockmorc 1997: 80 0. Shklar 1976: 96 t. .Solomoo lgEl: zl0l ll and 480,534, Sre*arr 2000: t65 2E?.

For spccialist studies of Hegel on rhe issuc of ideatjsm see Amer \t1991, Stem 1990. Wanenb€r8 t993, and K. R_ Wesrphat 1989.

For a specialist lrudy oflhe 'ObseNing Rcason s€rlion. sec Lnnrh1980:98 164.

For specialist studies of llegel s discussion of physiognorny anphysiology s€e Aclon 1971. Maclntyre I9?2a. and von dcr LuR tesr

For a spctialist srudy of Heg€ls dis.ussion of.thc spintual anrDr.,lkinSdom' s€€ Shapiro 1979.

For sp€cialisr studies of Hcgcl's cfitique ofKani's erhics see Ament\1987, Hoy l9lt9, Ko6Saard 1996. Lotrenbach and Tenenbaum t9,)r.Sedgwick l98Ea and 1988b, Shklar 1974. watsh 1969. K_ R_ \vcsrl|h,,l1995, and Wolxl 1989, l99O: 127-41, and t993

the dial€(ti( of Spirit

The Spirit chapler is discussed fully in lrudcct t98t: 185 244. litr\1984: 161 226. Hams 1995i 61 79. Haris teeT: . pp. t47 5:r)Hyppofire f974: 320 5211. Kainz 1983: I lo7, t.aucr tsj6,1.1.7 ,\.Lewenberg 1965: 185 28?, Nonnan l98l: 16 t04, pinkard l9r).1l l5 220. Rockmorc 1997: l l l 54, Shktdr 1976: t42 208. SimFsoh1998: 75 9lt, Solomor 19133: 534 79, Stewan 2000: 288 l8:]. NlWe$phal 1998b: l2l {6.

rbr sFcialisl srudies of HeB€l's discussior of,r,/rsr,r! s€e Mi s I 9&,.Pictercil l97tl. and Slein€r 1984

210

1998, Mi lbr 1978. and Wil l iams l99E

f URIH' i R€AOIXG

?.caslisi studid of Hcg€l's discussion of thc EoliShlcnmcnl sc.19E4. Pinkard t997, Ros€n 1974: IE3 228, St.m 199341997.

studid of Hcgel s discussion of the Fr€nch Rcvolulion| 976- Habcnnas 1973. Halfis l9??, Hoineth 1988, H)"polite

Nuss€r 1998, Rip6iein 1994, Rincr 1982, Sctunidt 1998. SnithSutcr 1971. and Wokler 1998

isl treatments ofth€ 'Moralrty' scction, s€e Friedman 1986't9?8. Hoy 1981, Jamros 1994: 82 127. Robinson 1977. and

Wcs9hal l9'9|.

6 the dialedic of Rcligion

Rcligion chapter is discussed tully in Dudeck l98l: 245 70 Flav22748. Harr is 1995: 80 91, Hanis 1997: l l , Pp 52l 7O7'

lq65:292 351. Pinkard 199.1: 221{8, Rockmore 1997:78, Solomon l98li slt{} 635, Slcwarl 184-454 M westphal

: 529 12. K^inz lglu: 125 71. Lau€r 1976: 210 55

| 187 210. \vr l l rmr leq2: 221 52.

l9ll9. JJmrcs l99,llt998.

?ccralst studrer *t D< Nys l9ri6. IhosSchitndorf l99li. and Vicillnrd-Baron

Absolute Knowing chaprcr is dis(usscd lully in l)udcck l98l:

l-84. Flay 198-1: 249 6tj. tlaris lee5: 92 7. llarns le9?: ll. pp

7 Philosophy ae dialecti(

l, HyppoIG 1971: 5?3 606. Karnz l9Eli I72 86. Laucr 1976:

, Lcwenberg 1965: 154 71, Rockmore 1997: 179 94.l98l : 615 41, Stewan 2000: 455 68. M Wesrphal 1998b:

l l 10. Wil l iams 1992: 251 I34

.occislisl studi.s sce Bubidge 1998. De Vos 1989' Devos

199E, Houlgate 1998. Kojevc 1969: 150 68. LudwiSt998,1989.

tu tTH t i h aaot x6

4 fh. dlllecti. of Ror.on

Thc R.$on chaptcr is discN!.d in Dudcck l98lt l2l-t4, Flay t()x,lI 13-61, Hffris 19951 47-60, Hanis 199?: l, pp. 447-62J and lr. pnI 146. Hr?polit€ 1974: 2t9-320, Kainz 1976: 98-t31. Lauer te76125-76, Lo€$coberS 1965: l13-84, Nonnan l98t: 67 85, pi,tlrd1994: 79-1t4, Roclnor€ 1997i E(Fll0. Shktar t976: 9Gt.lt.Solomon l98l: .tol Il .nd 48G534, Slewan 2000: t6S 287.

For specialist srudies of HcScl on rhe issue of ideatism se€ Amenh1991. Srem 1990, Wan€nb€rg 1993, and K. R. Weslphal t9E9.

for a specialist sludy of rhe .Observing Reason. seciion, se€ Lrnrh1980 98 164.

For sp€lialist studies of lt€gel's dis.ujsion of physiognomy undphysiology s€e Adon 197l. MactntFe 1972a, and von der Lun le81

lbr a specialisr srudy of Hegel's disussion of .lhe spinruat aninrllkinSdom' s€e Shapiro 1979.

For specialist studies ofH€gel's crilique ofKanr's cthics see Ament\1987. Hoy 1989. Korsgaard 1996. Lotrenbach and Tcnenbaum 19e5.Sedgwick l98Ea and 1988b. Shklar t974, Watsh 1969, K. R. Westphrl1995, and Wood l9li9. lgq)i I27 43, and t991.

Th€ dialectic ot Spirit

Th€ Sl'inr chaprer is discussed futty in Dudcck tglilr lri5 244. Flat1984i 163 226. Hnrr is 1995:61 79. Harr is t9e7: t t . pp. t47 520.Hyppolile 1974: 32{} 5211. Kainz 1983: I toj, Lauet t916: lj.1 229.Loewenbcrg 1965: 185 2E7, Norman l98lr86 104. pinkard t994:l l5 220. Rockmorc 1997: l t t 54. Shklar t976: I42 208. Simpson1998: 75 98. Solomon t98l: 514 79. Srewan 2m0: 28E l8l . MWeslJrhal 1998b: l2l 86.

For sp€cialisr studi.s of Hegcl s discussjon of,r,radre s€€ Mi s | 986.Pietercil 197E, and Steins 1984.

210

Rcli8ion chapter is discussed fully in Dudeck l98l: 245- 70' Flav

l: 22? 48. Haris 1995: 80 91, Hams 1997: ll pp. 521-707.: 529 72. Kainz l9{t3: 125 71. Lauer 1976: 230-55.

' UiT H€N i tAOII{G

irlbi lndies of Hegcl s dkcussion of ihe EoliShld'n.nt sc.

198'4, Pinkard 1997, Ros€n l9?4: lEl 228, Slcm l99la'

t997.

studies of H€gel's diEcutsior of lh€ Fr€nch R€volution

I976. Hab€rmas 1973, H!ni$ 197?, Honn€th l988,HFpolit€Nu.rs.i 1998. Ripstcin 1994, Ritt€r 1982, Scbmidi 1998' smith

Sutcr 19?1. and Wokler 1998.

r€atments ofthc 'Momlity' s€ction, scc Friedman 1986

1978, Hoy 1981, Jamros 1994: 82 127' Robinson l9?7' and

W.stphal | 5r9l.

The diale<ti( ot Religion

1965: 292 l5l, Prnkard 1994: 22l 6ll Roclmore 1997:

Solomon l98l: 5tl0 635. Slewan 18+454. lvl Wcslphal

187 2lo. Wil l ia 'ns 1992:221 52

tFcrsl 'sr r tud'es \ee l )c \ ) : lgdh. De!o\ Iq8".

260. Schitndorf 19913. .nd Vicillard-Baron )998

7 Philotophy ar dialecti(

Absolure Knowins ch4tcr rs discuss€d fullv rn Dudcct lglil:

1983: 615 41. Slewan 2000: 455 68. M Weslphal l998bi

l l lo. Wil l iams 1992: 253 84

m.cialist studies se Burbidge 1998 De Vos I9t39. txvos

199E. Houlgare l99lt. Kojave 1969: l5H8' LudwiS

sdcn 1998. Miller 1978, and williarns 1998

I 84. Flay 1984: 249 68, Ilffiis 1995: 92 7. ltanis 1"97: ll pp

, Hyppol i le 1974:5?l 606, Kainz l9E3: l l2 E6. Laucr Ie76:

, Lo€wenberg lq65: 154 71, Rockmore 1997i I79 94'

I t i tHt i iaao| l t6

I|rlr oi tha ftiam'|.nobgy In Ganr||n |.d F|t|tdr

hFn|ot biogtqhicd tn t rid rlhing to ttF gcndit.trd b.clSroundof &. PlE die^olog.tn bc foud in Roonlnnz lt14. (For psnialt|Dlbiot|r rcc SEL: 2'H5, lod Stc'lt (od.) (1993c): l" W.25(-4'll.Fuldr 1965 |nd 1966, HsiDS 1929.od l93r{, ed PdSS.l6 1961.1966, rlrd 1973 cdtrir cbsic dilclrrsior ofttc Pl€non rorqga .ndp.rticuhrly it3 (chlion lo fi. rtst of Hcgcl'r rydlm sd l.t!r tholghl.Morr icccot sludic! in Ccnmn includ. B€ckcr 1971, Clscrgc! 1981.Fink 1977, Hriffichr 1974, Klhlcr rtrd ll|ix 1992, Kimlrlc lc 1978.W. M|rr 1986, Sct i.r 1980, and Sicp 2000. For conuncnbri.s inFrsrch !.. Llbo'riar! 1968, and ribanih snd JarEzyt 1987 and1989.

212 211

lbliographY

by H.gel d fant

fro|n H.gpl's Wrn.t'ook', lr'nsldcd by S

trIT

Irmilil

slfrilry

ffi$i*l*l[ii$xr\t{|l{tli1,tutNl

Klcin, D. L. Rochnik. and G E \'clcr' Indepet'krl

Jour6t of Phtt^ophr, 3, l9?9: I -6. (This is ! p'nirl

rfuslation:. for ih. tull l.rt s.. Aphon$En rus

HEfs Wlsrct.Dt , ia Je\@. S.htifen' neo4.

vAasgobe, .di:cd by E. Mold.nhsud ard K M

Michcl. 20 vols md ind.x. Fnnt(fun sm M3inl

SunrllmF. 1969 ?1, ll, PP 540-6? )nE Ee ir Phenonenobgt, edit.d and tBnshted bv M J

Pdry. Doldrcchi: D. Reid.l, lqSl

Ttt C.itica! Jout"ol ot PhilNlh. IntMhction: On th'

Flecc of Phild'phical criticism (icneBllv md lrs

R.lrtiooBhiD to th. P.esr Statc of PhilNphv .hnstalcd by H. s. Hanis in E.tveen Ka,t ond

Heeel: T5ts in the Dewlolm.nt of Poe'Kdntiln

ld;rirD. t anslst€d by G di ciovmni and H s'

H|tris, Alb|ny: SUNY h!$ 1985. pP 272 9l'

ftt Ul@Q 8.t*eed ncrF- s.nl S.h. iLt's Svst' oI

frrrrroprr. t lBlakd bv H s Harr|s trd w C'rf'

Alte.y: SUNY Ptss 1977

He$l s Insic: Pan on oftt Ehcr.lopedid ofthe Ph oephicat Scie".t,.tubtcd by W. Walh... 3rd cdn, Oxford: Oxford Univcrsny prcs.1975.

Hq.l s Philotoph! of Noruft l?.^ Tvo of rbc En rclq.dia oJ th. phik,tophical S.ierces),cdirdrdtrnsl cd by M. J. Pclry, 3 vol!, c.orrcAUa & Un*1n: Lrndon, 1970.

H.g.l\ Prilorophf of Miid: Pan Itwe ol thc Eklctopedio of the phitoroplri.r, Sc,.rdr. lr|rlbrcd by W Wdlsc. |nd A. V Mitt.r, OrfordOxford Univ.Bity Pr!$, t9? 1.

Ea ! Thalogtcal n4itirys, nlndarcd by T. M. Xnox. Chicsgor Univcait\of Cbictgo PGss, 194E.

Foith and Kaodedge.t B,'rcd by W C.rflnd H. S. HrEis, AtbaDy: SUN.!'Press. l9?7.

He&el: The Le e6, t66lar.d by C. Aurbr and C. Sciler. BtmmingtonIndie Urivcrsary P|K, t984.

In,rodvtior to h. L.cturc.s on the Histor of phikts.,phr. rr-.slrtcd by lM. Kndx 3rd A. V Millcr, Oxford: Orford Unive6iw prcss. t9E5

Lc(tutes on thc Phtlotophy "1

,ro d Histot hhodu,tron R.d\on n'Hirlory, iEnshcd by H. B. Nisbcr. Cmb.id8.: Crmbrids. Univ.BntPr.s. 1975.

Jen@r SJste4e.teii|e l: Dts Srsten .let speetatiwn philotuphie, edit <lby K. DiisinS lnd H. Kimnctlc, HambuS:reli,( Mciner V.rlag. t986:hnslat d in sEL (s bctow)_

Jenoet S$ten nteii4e : LoAit Mektphlsit. Natu,phitotuphie, cdited b\R-P Ho6tmnr. HamburS: Fclix Mcincrvcrtag. l9E2; panialtyrEnslst d in The Jena S$ten, /E0, /8alj. ranslsted by L W Burbidgemd G. di Ciownni, Monrcal, Mccill,Quccn\ Univ.Biry press.19E6.

kn!.r St\tcnantriitk IL Ndtlrphilutuphc uad Ptlitowphie dls Ge\tes..diied by R-P Hosimrnn. liambury: Fclix Meincr V€rla8, l9E7i I)aLtially mnthcd m lks./z,d h. Hunaa Spnit,t Trotndtu,n ot th.Jcid Lt.tu,.x o" th! Itttu,.lp,ir ldo5 6. rr.nstared by L. Rauch,D.troit: Wayne Slac Un'versiry Press. l9El

tlepal: A.sthati(!: Lcdttet oi foe,{r, iranslared by T M. Xrox, 2 voh.Oiford: oxfo.d Univc6ny PEss, t9?5.

Lat ret oa ttu lti oa ofphl/.r'opr'. rtanslared by t s l|!ldu. and F. HSrmson. I !ols. Londo.: K. Parl. TrcNh. Trnbner. llt92 lE96ircpnnt.d Lo.don: Univ.rsiry ofNcbhsfta prcs. 1995.

latups oa the Philosophr oIRetAior. tBnstal€d br E. B. SpciN and, B.SandeMn. Ncw Yolk: Humrnnies P6s. l%2.

2 t4

urd Aphonsm.n lAlFlaSl', in B. i^er Schrnen IEIE-l8tt.Tr@tie w.rkasaabe, .dirad by E. Moldctthda.td K M Michcl'20 vok .td indci. F..!lfut rm Mrin: Suh.tmP. 1969 ? l' )(|. Pp.55G74.

l?,,to, is H9ton: A G.nMl lrno.lucion to the Philosophr of Histon'

translarcd by R. S Hmman, lndisMPolisr BobbsMorill, 1953.

Th€ Rchtionship of sccpticism lo Phildophv" tr&n|lat d bv H S. Hmis

inqet\|een KMt antl HeEel:le s in th. Developn oflbtLKa ian

/dealdt. lEnslatd by G. di Giova.ni .id H S Hr.ris AltEnv:

SUNY Prcss. 1985. rtn. lll 62Ststen o.f Ethicol Lik llll0:/3)dnd l;irst PhilosoPht ol spi/ (Pdrt Iol

the Svsten of Spellative Philo('Phr lE0J/4). .dited nd ntnslal.d

by H. S. Haris and T M Kno& Alb.ny: SUNY Prcs. le79'

S.i.r. s ol rdsk , lEnslatcd by A v Millcr' London:(idn8e Atlcn & Unwin

tts: The Sciennlc lvdlt of7l$tiry Nan/tu|b|',lts PIoc.la Monl

Philosoph!, dn l t Re/,'tion to the Positive S.lencet of lav' r,a'

hi.d by T' M- Knor PcrBylvsnir: UniwGitv of Ptrsylvrnia PF$'

t915.Phltdopht o! History,ldartrjaled by J SibG Ncw Yo.k Dov.r' 1956

of the Philosophy oI Right. cdiLd by A. W wood ransht€d bv

H. B. Nisbcl, Ctmb.idgc: Cebddgc Univcrsity P|s, l99lo/ $pi.rir. ltusl.Ed by A. V Milld, Oxfod: Ortord

Uriv.Eny Pr.$. 1977.rrno$. cdited by L. Dickey and H B. Nisb.t. tnnddcd bv H B

Nisb4 CMb.idsc: CmbridS. UniEBity tt$. | 999

ln fic css of lhosc eorl. lhlt ,nctud. marcrial frcm $u.lent nolcs.

txt rcf€ded ro is lakcn from rhcsc norcs. thrs is indicatcd bv addinS a Z to

thc pr.!8raph nrmber (e s lll.: ll58Z) ln cass *b.r. a Fretcnce comes

frw l*o dilTcrcnr transhln,tr\ ofthc str,c tcri.lhis is indicatcd bv punrtg

.'/ b€tseen rhc refcrenccs lc I ILPWllr l9 RHr lllThe following worls by Kant lrc cncd in thir volude:

m! Oitique of lru.ti.ol Rtun)nThe Gitique oJ Prre RedsonGtuun.lhotk ol the MetaPhr '\ .1 tltrdklvhat Reql Pr.'gress Hds MltuPhr'lit! Mdl.' In cemat! Sin e the nne ol

kibniz and wt'W

215

R€fcracc! !rc givcn ro fic volumc lnd p.r. rumb.r of lh. a€rtin Acadenr\Edition of K|||f! wriritrt! (vhich c.n bc found in rlE n rSini of mo3t r.dn,l iotr! ofthc!. wort!), crclpi in dF..r. of rl|. Cttgv oI hre neaw.ehich is cn.d in rttc srod.rd fln, Elding !o rh. FaiDtion of dl. A (farllnd B (3.trd) cdition!.

(Xh.r rvoiksAcron, H. B. (1971), 'Hcg.l s CoDcrFion of rh. Srudy of Hulno Natur. .

in notal Institute of Philosoph! Lectures, yol 4: 1969-20: The proll,tr/r// (Bri8hton: Harvestd Press), 12.4?i r.prinrcd in lnwood (ed )(19E5): l l7 52.

Adel'M, H. (19E0).'Of HMm Bondsg.: Labos, Bond.Ng., ad F@don,in the Phenonetulo&.', in v.rcrc (.d.) (t9EO): tt9 15: reprinr..lm O'N.ill (.d.) (1996): l7l 86i snd i. St€wan (ed.) (1998).t55-71.

(f964), Hcgels Phenoneaolog,': Flcing the prcfrcc , .t/eatrtlStudies,l4: l59 lO.

Adom, T. W. ll911), Negatite DiolecrKs. r6ns. E. B. Ashron, LndonRourtcdgc.

Ameriks, K. ( l9E7). 'The Hcgclian Cririqu. of Kntian MoBlity., iD B. d.nOud.n lnd M. Moucn (.ds) (t987): r€prinl.d in his (2000) ra4, dr,/the Fdte of ,|utqon\ Cdbridgc: CrmkidSc Univc6ity prcrs109 37.{1991). HcSeled ldcalisn , Ire Mo"ixr 74: 386 {02: Eprinred nsrcm (ed.) (l99lc). l : 522 37.

' (2000s), Int.oduction: hierpretinS (i€me ldealism , ir Amerit\(ed.l (20(rcb): | 17.(ed.) (200ob). The (ahbridse Conryrbn to ccrnan tdeotnu.(-obndge ( ambndg. UnrteB,ry Pcsr

Austin. J L. {1962), Seny lnl Sensibiliu, Oxford: Oxlbrd Univcrsr\

Blxtcr. D. ( 19196). Bndlcy on Subsranriv. dd Adjeciive: Tte Comple\.Unny Probl.n . in Ma.d.r {ed.) (tqDi). | 2:t.

Bect, L W (1976t. The Rcfomarion. rhe Rcloturio., and rhc RcsroEtidlir Hcgcl \ Polirical Philosph y , Journal of the Histon ol philosopht .l4:51{1.

Bccker. W ( I97l). teset P hinoneMtosie .le! Ceistes Eine Interr.tdtion.sun$n: Kohlhdli.r.

zt5

. F. C. (198?). Ihe Fate of Realrn: G.tu^ PhilosoPhv frod Kdnl

to Ficltr, Crnbritg., Mass. md tddon: ttlwud Univcnitv Prcss.(.d.) (1991), ?L Canffise coipoaia to H.gel, c'rnbndg.:

C{rbridg. Uliv.tlity Ptrls.in, J. M. (19E4). 'Frott Sclf-Coo!.ioustr65 to Comuniy: Acl ttd

R€cognition in th. Md.r-Slavc Rclttionship'. in P.lczvNli (.d.)

(l9tt): l4-le.B. (1984). BEdl.y d ir Mrn|.r |nd slocl (.ds)

09r4),2r l 26.A. (lY)tl, Schelling d.l Moden Ewopeot Phil$ophr, lanfl/Jn

Rootlcdgc., F. lt. (lgJ't, ,lryeorun e ard ieoliry, nmth imprcssion (con€clcd)

Orfod: Orford UniwFity PGs.J. w. (197E), ''Unn ppy Con3cioB*$'in Hc&I , ll/drd,t ll:

67-80i rcpdnt.d in hk 11992) H.qel on lDgi. anl Religitu: The

R.asonoblqes' ofchrittiattry, Atbsny: SUNY Pr!33, I05-lE;.nd in

Stcwan (ed.) (199E): 192 209.( | 99E). Absfurc AcrinS', rh e Qwl oI Minveflo. 30: loi tB

I.lrgall, Do6te nA .les eftclcinenden tristeas: ,s,lmtivieElrleiltng tu Hesets PhArcd.tdba,e /.s Gersrcr. Bdnn: Bdvi'r'

E. L(t 1\ n. Min.t of Gott anl the works of Man. oxfo.n Ort6n

B. (l9r'), ,l\at is Liing ard What n DeadIteSst, ttu' D Ainslie. London MacDillan

s. spriSgc. London:-

(1941). lnrt,4 dl ,r? 5t,^ d,'fuh".n. rhnsCcorge Allcn & Unwin

dar Oud.;. B. anij Mouen. M. (eds) t I 98? ), lr'e$ tlr4rr,t Karr' New York|

D! Nys. M. r. (l97li). _ scnsc_( enainry lndUtivcMhv: Il.SelsEnrntce

anto rhc Phenonn'aol.t!4:. ln^rndtr'ndl Phtl.t.Phnal Quo th la:

445 65i rcp ntcd In stem (cd I I l(})lc). lll l08 10

- (19E2). forcc and UndcrsundinE: Th. Unity of rhe Obist or

consciousneFi. in wcslph.l (cd )(1982) 5? ?0.

- {1986), M.di.rbn and NcSdlllrty in Hcgels Phenomcndlogv of

Ch.isti& Consciousn.ss . , )urndl Dl Religio'. 66: 46 57 i ftpnntcd in

sr.wan (ed.) (199,1).401 2:rDa..ncs. R. (1985). Rules for thc Dir.ction of lhe Mind in 1''s

Philosophi.ol Writinss ql lrdo .s, trans J Cottinghum R

Sl.Dthoff. and D. Mudsh. 2 vols. canbridgcr Cmbndgc Univ'sitv

211

artUoGtarrrY

D. Vo., L (1969), Aboll! Kmwing ir {E prari.rdtos,', in Wyl(c4) (19t9): 8l-m.

D.!o., r- (l9t!)t lJt Sitnicc-@ of [6!if..r Midon inPtu',ct &s', i[Wltffi (.d) 0tlgl t9r-219.

- O99tI 'Ho* At olu. ir Hlgd'r Ab-trr. Kmehg?', ?t (r.,Nl,ev,30: tt-'O.

d.Vrka W. A. (19{&), 'H.8.1 oo Ld€ttncc ||ld Kiowtcdgc.. ./o!rr./A. Ehwy of Phtlotoplty, 26: 297-507 .

- (l9t8b), H.gcl's n@ry of ltdt4t lcttvtty, ftLqt tACo([cll UDivwity Pr!!!.

- (f 991).'Tt DirLclic o|T.l.r,logy., ptitarqhi.at Topics. 19: 51Doioogho. M. (19t9), 'ntc worll|tr in \rtir.: On lc R€c.r.id of lr.

Anneov' , IL. N of Mi"eM, 2l: 6A9.Dud6l, c- v (198f), ,' s"r'r 'Pt6on aoto&' of Mt d : An tw,

Corr.rrdrT. Wrlhingron: Uniwrliry pEsr of tundica.Dulckh.it. K. (1986), 'cm H€8cl R.fcr to prnicuh$?'. rt. oel o/

Enumrucf, S. M. (.d.) eml), The Bhctwett Gtme b th.

17: lEt 94: Eprinr.d in sGern (.d.) 0998): t0!21.Dr{!at., D. (lt'91). 'Thc Fohi.d Si8niffcr.rc. of H.8ct,s co(.qr

R@rritioi'. allrrertr of the Heeet Sslety of creat Stilain,3E 5:l-

PhilotopheB: FtM Desca q ro rvier,rct€. Orf€rd: Bhct*ctlFindliy, J. N. (r9'8l, H.sel: ,t R.exantnatton, Londo!: Altcn

ir

- (f977), Arbfysi, of $. f.xr',-m Heaetj pheMrerorcs, .r .rus. A. V Mittcr. Oiford: Oxford Univ.fiiry lrs, 495 591

fint, E. (f977), HWI Ph1nonqolosik e ldkofthnoren.kr tn.nloAie .les GeitEs. Ftu'*.ftn: Ktosr.m.nn.

Ff .y. J. c. (1970),'Hcg€l'i "lrve.red wortd . teyi# d/ Me topht \, 1, 21652 7Ei cp.ini.d in Srcm (.d.) (1993c): I , I48 {l; and in sr.*a(cd.) (1998): llE 54.

- (l9U\. Hegel t Qult F,/ Ceza,rt. Atbuy: Suttry prcs.- (1996),'Absoluc Knowing dd frc Abloturc Ottd., rr. (r/

MireM.lO:69-82.Flctuchlnm, E. ( | 97 | ), TIlc Rote of lh. Individu.l in prc-rcvotut,,r,.,

Socictyr Stimcr, Mrn. ard Hcg.l . itr pctczymki (.d.) (1971)r ]]tl iro8lcr, M. N. (1998), ted t lds ofa 'phmn ,oloe/ ofspi,,7 . ( hlL.rl

Univ.niry of CticrSo prc!!.Fnnco, P. ( 1999), tes.r 3 Pi tlosophy of Fre.don, N.* Hav., lnd r.on|l(r

Yrlc UnivcBitv Prcs!.

z1a

C|nbridsc: cmbridsc Univc..ily Prc!6

2t9

I Z ( lt't6), Hypocri.y |nd tb. Hirb.|t (bodi Hc8.l on xxlidtlon nm Mqdity io n.[gi6. Jos'io, ol ,t Hht'rv oI

21:5Ot-22.

Lfit, F mktur: Klo.$t m.'Ztr L.Sik d.r Pi'lnodnologie vG31 7!l0li t!p.i cd in Fuld..d

Hcnrich. D. (.d.) (t9731, Mawiol6 z! H.g.ts

&r C.itr6', F tfun: Sub*tm9.

e,;J6nXl|'t e,a$nu.,ye'd tt. tat M@at tu:Pt'{ti0', (l9{,Sr, b Mhn .tB EtrLi,,,ry tn H.stb vttet'l.hal

l8O1' , H.a.LS1I/dEn,Hc'ri.h (€d!) (1973):

HC. t tc'tbl B.8ptt r*.lt d wo.ld"'. i! hit tLatl\ Dia"cltti

. H.r,wtuncal sn//kt, i@ P cltniqhc! Smith' Ncw Hlttn

l.d&!: YrlG Urivct ity Pra!" l!51; EptiDi.d in Sl.m (dJ

In. l3l-{?.'Hcrcl s Didcctic of s.lf-Cor$iouncle'. i^ his Heset

', ri. A*"^uri*t Suaio. t!!tu. P Chnltopb.. smilh'

tl^€n |trd London: Yrlc UnivcBitv Pr6!' 54-74: EFinttd in

.ill (cd.) (1996): 149-70.(1999), 'An snd'Ir'.odiry', innis Ms^li v Cuhun. ord.ll'to7:

rtmr (.d.) (1934)r I l&lEM. O. (1994). fl.srl1' So.tul PhilotuPhr: ne Prcject o! Recon'

on G.dan Phil6oPh!, Cambridgc: C.tnbridgc UDvc|lirv

7t- 5.M. A. (1984), Hesel, Hei leas and the GMnd of Hiltory'

rnd t n lon: UnivcBilv of Chicrgo Prc$S. (cd.) (1999). Ihe Edinbutsh Ercrclopcdia of conti@ntol

bloriv. Edhhrsl|: Edi ursh Univc'sirv Pr.$

S. tigitl, 'uo'at a"a Urc."'y lde.ls h Hcscl s critrqe or "TlE

Wo.ld-Vicw"', Ctio. 7: 315 402; rcprinLd in sL*'n (cd )

307-ll.lzf{[l, Kait on rtecdod Loa dnl /rdPPnetr. catnbndsc:

,odrc Unrv.rsnt Pnsi . t icrrr , Hegcts tnrrquc uf th< frcn(h R€lolutpn. rn hi{

dnl Pru.ti.e. tmns. ,ohn vicnel Boston: Acacon rtts3.

t,L.0929\. Hesel: Seia Wo a u.t Sein Wefi2.L.iPzi9:Tucbn.i'

'Di. EffLhun$8.$hicht. d.t Phlnomctologie in B

tfnti!. H. S. 1t972)\ Hescrr D.Elopnant l: tMr.t the $,ht h!( I 77u I Eot ). oxrdd: Oxfotd Urivdity Prcas.

- (1977). HcScl snd fi! F'!mb Rclolutid . clio, ?: 5-18..'-..'_ (f9E3). fla8"ll D.'.lory.nt Il: Nltht Thdghtt (Jena t60t 6).

Orfordr oJddd Urivd.iry Prcs.- (1991), 'H.r.l\ Intcu..tu.l Dcv.lopmc'f, in Bcis (d.) (|eet)

25-5t.- ll.n5), HeSel: Pte@n @log and Sys,!6,tndi.napoti6: Hsct.n.

(997r, HeAel s Ladde4 2 \o13. Indi.narblis: H&lcn.H!yn. R. ( | E57), lt Sd lrr' reiM Zat. Bdlin: Ru&tlf c&nncr: rcDrintcd

D.rmsradt: wisrl$bnlich. AuchS.slkchn, 1962.Hcidqt3o. M. ( | 970), fteser's Con.ept of &pertme,ta'B. J. G. Cny. Ne*

Yorkr H6rFr & Row..- (1994). HeSels Phehonenolog of Spitit . l(sns. p Emod and

K. Moly, Bl@ninglon: Indiana UDivmity Prcls.Hcinc, H. (1986), nel€io, ard Philorophv is Gemtny, n(ns. J. Srodgras\

Albmy: SUNY Prc$.Hcirichs, J. (1974), D,e l,ai* det Phano^eaokgie .tes ceirrer. Bonn

Hclmm, B. ( f 993). n. P.a.r'.? oj Mual h.la.tu . CsfiidAq M^ss:Hadsd UnivcBity Prc$.

Hinchm.n, L. P (1984), tdael t (: tiqk oJ the Ettiahtqr.rr. CaiDesvi cUniversity Press of Flonda.

Honnoth, A. ( I 98E), Atomism lnd Erhical Life: Or Hegel\ (liriquc of ihcFrcDch R.hludon , Prrlor.rp, v ond S..ial C|itithn. t4: 359 4a.tl995l, Th? Strussla lol Rt\\tgnitioa: The Motut Grunno of S.xiatConlthr. tBns. J. Ander\on. ( rmb.idge: Foliry pms.

I foufgaic. S. ( | 9f9 | ). f'..r'or . Iruth .r.t Histo4.: 1n t"telutr,a h I teeel t/til.^1,/,rl London: RolrlcdSc(1998). Abefrre Knos.inS Rcvisnc{. The /;l.tl ot tttin.^!.3115r 6ti.(2ml) , C. W F. Hegel . in tmma.uel(ed.)(2(xl l ) : 2?8 105

Hoy, D. C. {l9lit), 'Hcgel\ Monls , DroioSr?.20: 8,r t02.(I969), Hegel's Cririquc of K^ntian Moatfiy' , H

^hn d l,hihMrhr

Quutte \ 6:207 32.ffumc, D. ( l97E),,r ?}.ari? t, Hundn Naturc,2nd.nn. cd. by l_ A Setb),

ai88c and n t] Niddnch. Orford: Oxford Unive6iry prcs.Hyulolirc, J. ( 19169), Thc Si8nificancc ofrhe Fench R.votution in ltcgct\

Phetun.nolos" , a^ li Sru.li.s on Ma^ atu! H?sel, nans. L O'N.itt.London: Heinmm. l5 69.

220 221

'PherM.^olo8, of SPirit , N€* Yorl: Paragon Hlle

J.bb. R- C. ( fq{2), 'lntroduction' , Th. Antisone of5ophdl€r' ed R C lcbb.

sbndgcd by E. S. Shuckburgh, Cambndtc Cmbridgc Univc'lilv

Xlhlcr, K. snd Mad, W (1992), Die ve ulli in Hesels Phiinomtnotogie

..t?r C?6l.r. Frlnktun: Klost.|mnn.fuinz. H. P (1976). HeAch Ph4oh.norrg) Pd l: '4nalvsis and

Cott.trary. Tu$tlo.sa: Univcrsitv of Alabaro Prc$i rcpn'ted

AttEns. OH: Ohio UnivcNity Pt s. 1988......_ (lgEl). H.aert Pheaodenokt& Pdr, /,. Ath'ns. OH: Ohio

UnivcBiry FtEss.yfrufmsnn, W 11965\. H.aet: Rci\krPtuun'" Te s a^'l (\'nde^tory'

Ldndon: weid€nftld and Nicol$n

- (1,)7t) . Hegels ldcas l tnut TruScdy. in sreinkruus led ) (1971) l

201 20.Kclly, O. A. (1965). Notcsun HcScls Lordshin and BondaSc . f,(f4" o/

Metophr'ltcs. 19:7&t 80:i rcPrinl.d in his (lr)?lt) l(rf'?r /ionEkb'l stwli.\ in lilnit tl lldi'(rt- Princcion: Prin'don tlnile6jtv

PBs.29 54: and in () : \ . r l l l .d I l1996l . ?51 72: lnd rn Sl .m (cr l )

( l99lc)r l l l . l6 l ?9: rnd rn s ic$.n lcd ) ( lq98l l71 9l

Kimmcrlc. C ll9?8). n1, uin ,lh\t I n,ltiu.hwe :r/ kdhtoriut'n

Ei"htit v ltn tlt u (ntu nt lltgth I'h'i'r)nrnnk)8it' 'ks

(n,iv.{. Bonn, Bou!'crKojdvc. A (1969), Iat ltutn'n n' th. R.dlin:!,/ //.!'/. lbndscd. lBns'

J. ll. Nichols, Ncw Yorkr llrr. &n)ks

Korisrtnj. ( M. (1996), Kunr'\ I('mula of ihc l rnivcrs'l Li* in her

<r.dtiit! thr liinsl.n ,/ tt./r, ( ambndSer Cambridgc Unile6riv

R$i ?7 105 rp.inrcd trom Pd.if. Philosophkdl Quorrth 1985'

tatEritrc. P-J (f968). !'d,irt,ra Dtulcctiqu' 'lons

la

Ph[\oniroloqn n. l r:\rit /. lL'A.l Paris: Arbicr

I I ' I IOGiAPHY

ll974l, Gensis @.t s,tuc/'ur. d ttea.l's 'Pt^onenoloAt d Spint .

'tni. S. C'tmi.l lrd J H.ctlM, Evuston: Ndlhwd.m Univ'r

M. (19E3), ne8.1, t don: Rourlcds.(1992),,4 Hegel Dicrionary,Oxfordr Blactw.ll.(€d.) (19E5). ,te8el, o'.fordr Oxford Utivditv P.!$W.\l.t..]'),A Pttttol|tti. Uniw&, London: t ngr

'Crc.n'&Co'

LrbaniaE. P-J. ald J.rczyk, G. lt9a7\ HeE t: Les preniers .o^h^ lt(la reconnatusaace noibtte et snitude dans td phtnon.nolqrde Heael. Pulst Athi.'.

- (l9a9t,lz 6olt.ur.le la.Msck..e tu I a.dt d td tuina. Libc a tl,I ad6o6.i.ae: tbicisn, s..Flkisne et la dns.ide ddlhd@k.lut et .otndertair., Prm!: Atbr.t.

Ladb, D. (197E), 'Hcgcl and Witrgcnst€in on Lmgurye and SensL,ccnlinry . c/@. ?:285 30t.

- llga0t Hccel: Fhn Four.lat r, r, tNr.r. rhc Haguc NijhoffL^n t,Q. t. (1976),,1 Reo.ling { H.&efs phe,onlnoh,gt. a/.tp,z?.. N€$

Yo*: Fo.dham Univ6iry ftcs.Lockc. J. ( I975),,.1, frra] Con..rnins Itunan Ljatetstdtut irs. .d. by p rl

Nidditch, Oxford: Oxford Unilcmiiy pressLe*enber8. J. (f965). H.sels Ph.honeaolog|: Diotos,ks on th. Lift,rl

M,ad La S.llc, ll.:Opcn Coun.Loiicnbach. H. ed Tcnenbaun, s. (1995). .lteg.t\ (iiriquc of Klnl in rh.

?hilosopht ofRish!'. Kunt Stu.tiq. a6:21| ]0.t.iiqith. K. (li)71), Mediarion and Imnedi(y in Hes.t. Mn rnd

Feucdach. inSreihkBus(ed )( l97t t : 9, l lLudwiS. W D. (1989). l tcgct\ Con.cprion of Abs,tut. Xrosin8., rrd al, /

tl lVineNu,2lt 5 19.Lukdcs. (;.I1975), r?f Llra t/.!./, trlns. R. Lilinssronc, London Merlin

LuDsdcn. S. (1998). Absolurc Knos'ng _ nn. ()nt d yin.n-u. ttl

Lunrcrcn. F. ton{le9t). Eishtecnrh-( .ntury ( i)tucpr n,ns oi ( iru t nution.. nPciry (ed.) I1993r: t.l] 15f,.

Nt.(;inn. ( ( l99lf. /,,D/,/.1A rt I'h t&ft.r: tht I nt^ t,t /,4rn. ()rtirdlJlacl$ell.

Mlehryrc, A ( l9 l : r ) . t lcgct of t ie$.nd Str s. . r i l \ tnct l r ryrc (ed I( I972b): 219 .1f ' : lc t r intrd I r Srewdn (ed.t I t998t ) | I 1.1(cd.l (f9r2b). lt.Ett: A (blh\.tioh o/ (i,fudl t$/rr. Nc{ yorr:An.hu' &$1,

Nt.ndc.. \1. J. (ed., (lqr6). /'o\t\\r\.t.n ftc t!!k antl t(ldrhrr(s ot ttl qtut!!.t, tsrlrot: thocmnrls prcss

Manscr. A. and Strrk. C tcds) lt9al\ The phih^Dth.r ol t . Brudl.t.Oxird: Oxlbrd Univc6iry prcss

Mrrcus. H (1955). /i,z!,, otuI Retr'tuuod: .tlft drd th. Ris. n[:t .iotl'rada..:nd cdn. London: R,url.dse & K.gan paul

222 223

BISLIOGRAP}IY

E. Avcling ad S. Mo$rc, N.wl|.n. K. (l$5). CoPl,al. volumcYork: Modcm LibE.Y.

X|rr, w (f 975), ,t"8.lit Ph"Mcnolost of Spnit : .t Conrentory on

rt. Mace oad lsttodkti8. ftn5- P Hoth. N€s Yo*: HnFr ed

......_ tf986,). D^r se/r'trD.usstvin in Hegek Phatunerologie d.s Geitt6'Fntrktun: Klo3tcmant.

Millcr. M. H. (19?El. Thc Attsinmcnt ofthe Absluie StudPoint in HcSel\Phenonenok't1t'. (;tu lu,e f'@ltt Phildophr Joural.lt 195 zl9:

rqtrinred in St.*.fl (ed.) ( l9r9t): 427'41.Milb. P. J. (t9li6). H.8el s,{friAdr. . Th. Oel t, Mi\etu. 17: l3l 52

rcprinrcd in Mills (cd.) (1996): 59 lisi and in Stewan (cd.)(199E):

......_ (€d. ) { | 996). t-.'it6, .1, terPr.totio6 ol (; lv f Hqet. Pc.nsvlYanu:Th. PenNyl\nni! St!t. UnivcRily Pres

Munay, D. { 1972}. Hcgct:rorccand Unde6l lndrnS. inVesc}( .d ){ t972):163 71.

NsSel.l ( l9E6).Ird ri.'s th)t.\',itrrcru. Oxf(rd ()xford Unilcrsitv Prcss

Nohouser. F. {l9lt6l. ttducins D.sirc lnd Rccognnion in $e Pheno-h"nolor. rl stint . Jou dlol th! thstort olPh t^ophr.24:24142.

- |2OOU, tutiddti'ns ol lkr.l \ so.iul Th!o\: ALtrdli.iata l-r.etlon.Canbridgc. Mas. and l.ondon llarv!.d Univcrsilv Pr.s

Ncu$r. $. (1991). lhc (i,n.cpt of lorcc in EiShtccnlh'CcnffvMechanics . In I'clry (il | ( l9erlr .llil 9rl

Nier{he. t tlt)lll. fr. (,in .\irtrr.ldn! $ Kruftnrntr. Nc* Yort:

Randon HouscNomln,R.(1981). / l r ( . / l f l 'hainmoh'x\ '1 l ' l t i l t^q,hnu| ht t \ l , f tor .

srsse\: l l !^csr$ l tc\sNondn. R. E tl\t95r, fhr Brrrttlnl Snrl l\thrltt \lttulh i, tha

l ,grkr , / l ( ,n/rr t . l lhrc.r .nxt I ondon ( orncl lUni \ . r \ , ly t rcss

Noztck, R ( l9t t1) . I r r l , \ ,4,hrt l l \ l r lot t t r ,^ t ) r l : \ t tJ Or lbd t l ! ' ivcn' ty

Nussbrrm. M r1986). lhr linttltt\ nl r;\\hn'\\' I rmbild8(r ( ambnd8€

t-hr\c6,ry lt($Nus*r. X i I 99lt l. 'l hc | rcoeh Rc\ olulbr and I l.8.l s Ph.no,t.rolDsr ol

liJtil . lran\ J Slcsrn In Slc*dn (ed ) ( 1998): 282 106.

ONeill. J (cd.) (leerr). //ttr/:r lrdl.dn d 1,.\ir. rn.l Ra(Dqnition.Albany: SLINY lrc\\

PclczyNkf. z. A. fcd ) I le?l). llt'E l s PDhtttul I'hilos)Pht. (ambnds'l

CambndS. I intr cairy PG\s

....._ (cd ) (1984), rhe Stdte oad C/vii .teiery. Crmbridgc: CrmbridAeUnivc6ity Pr.ss.

Pary. M. ,. (d.) ( 1993). ,rea"/ ard rYardnioatr. Dordrccttr Ktu*cr.Pi.rftif. R. (197E), A igor. sd H.gct', t.E MtioMI phitephnd

Qtan..lr, la. 2A9-3lO-Pinlq4 T. (l9Eg), Hegls Diolectic. The l:tplohotio, ol p6sibitt^.

Philadclphia: Tcmpl. Univcsity Prcss.- (19 ), Hegel ! Phenodenologr'': The :i(iulitr of Reann, Can

bridg€: Camblidg. Univ€rsity Prcss.(1997). Ronandczcd Enlidtlnment? Enlishrcncd Rmlnriciln'Un'v.Nlism and Psrticuleis in Hcg.l s Undc6hnding of rhcEnlubt n'ffit . Bu etin oI the Hesel :*x.i4. ol <jred Anrai^, Itl8 18.

(1999), Hisrory and Philospny| Hcgcl'! Pheaonenoto& t't Spiin ClcndiDnirs (ed )(1999),57 68.eoma), Hesel: A Eiosrophr, CambnlA.: Csmbndge Univchi[

' (2000b). Heg.l s Ph.nohe"ok's,- and l?,ar.: An Ovcn,ie* . nrAmeriks (ed.) (2m0b): l6l 79.

Pifffin. R. a. { | 9E9 ), tl"s./ I' Idealbn: the lt tisf^\tuLt 4 !;elt( inyn,r,dr\. (-anbndg.: ( amhnds. Unrvch,r) P(s.(1991). You Can\ Oei Fhfr ll.rc to Thcrcr TBnsition pmblcms !lH.Eel s Phenonladb&t oISpi.ir'. itr Bciscf (ed.) (t991): 52 85.

PiiSScler, o ( I 96 | ). Zur lhutun8 der PhiinomcnobSie des ( ietsrcs , li,ll./Srudi.n, tt 255 9.1: rop.inrcd in PiieScter 119?lr: l70 2lr)(1966). Die K'mlr,irn,ndcr Phiinomcnon,sr d5Ceisrej. in t/..*r./.t!r',.r. aeihen l: 2? 74: reprinrcd in Fllda and Hcnrich (cdsl(197-t) :129 1I) .

'- fleTl), /tB,/r llk,rir.t Phaanom."ilorn, dj (lrJ?.r. lrciblr8Munich:K!. lAlbcr

R.uch. L and Shcinan. D (1999). lht1.l.\ I'htuhnadot<r .l S.( rn1.tohr.$. Alblny: SUNY Prcss.

RcddrnS. P (r996). ll.E.l x ll.rrkn.utn\, lrhaca dnd London: (ome[Unive6ny ftEs\.

R,lcy. P (1995). Rousrsu s (ieneBl will: FEtdom ofa panicutar Xrnd .

'n wol lq (ed.) t tqr95,: I 28.

Rrpsrcin, A. ( 19914), Unilc$al and ceneial wr s: Hesel and Rouss{au,h'hi. ol Theon. 22: 444 67.

Rftcr, !.ll982l. HeEel anl! the ften.h Rcwlrtu'n.lf;ans. R. D. Winfietd.('amb.id8e. Mas. and Londo.: MIT P.crs.

224 225

AIBLIOGhAPIIY

tobctu, J. ( I9S8), C4ta, P, ilonPhr: '1. lntrcdu.tion, CanbridS.: Polity

tobiruon. ,- (19?7), DuN add Hvryrifl i. Hegel's PhdMlogz .tJ

trrd . To.odo dd Bufhlo: Utivmtty of ToMlo PE3s.RoctnoE, T. (1993), ,e/ote a^.! Af., H4eL I His/orical l^ft'dt ,ion to

Heael's Tholaht, Rctk L\!: UniycBity of colifo$i! P|6

- (1.t97). Coeaind: An lntodtction to Hqel s Pheaoderolory oI

Splrir'. B€*clcy: UnivcBily of califomia Pr!3s.Xs'€o,S (1974), G. lY. F. Hegel: 4n Intrc.l6tiD to the S.ie.ce of Wis.lon.

N.e Hrve.: Ysl. UnivcBily ft!$l*ntr!n:. K. (lE{4l. Geda Wlhela Frie.lti.h Hq.Lt L.be.. B.ltin:

D|ln ld and Humblol: Eprintcd Damstsdt: wi.e$h.filichc Buch'gc$ll$han. 1963.

Rous.u..l-J. (1991), ftil". n ns A. Bl@m. London: P.nslin

-- (lsg4r me So.iul (Intd.t, tans ( 8ens, Oxford: Oxford

Univcsity Pre$.Lu!i.ff, B. (t956). Portrdtt! lron Menot! an.l (rthar Esqrs.

Gor8e Allen & Unwin.Srllis, .t. { 197?), 'Hcs.l's Conc./ of hcsentation: lrs Dcl.midlion m lh.

Pr.f!c. ro th. Pr.,,t.r./.,sr of Spitir' , Hcs.l'sttulien 12: t29 561

lcmnred in his{l9ri6r Ddi' itotions: Ph.non.noloP'r and th. EndolMetdprrsi.r. Bl@FinSlon and Indranrpolis: Indran! Unilesilv Prcs.4(M2: md in Srcw.n (ed.) (19E8): 25 51.

stnrc. !P (1958). adi,s rr../ ,v,rrt,8,rir. traN.

Schachr. R. (1972). A ( i)mn,cnrary on thc l'rci-a(c to lleaels Pr.ro_n.nxlosl:. PhnN't'h"I st/.ri r lr I lli rcnnnted in his (19751

HeE tant! Al,.t: shkln\ n(i,n n.tull I'hno''t'ht 8.tr.an runtun.!.sdrr.. PnlsburSh: (h!v.r$ty ol Pittsbu.lh l'tuss.'ll 6'l

Scheicr, ( -A. (l9li0). /r.l !t\ho turnn^thtr rt lh11!l\ I'hnnod.nnlt)Ck,/tr (t.^r6, tBihclr/Munieh: Alber

S.hill.r. f (r96?). trn tlv 4.\thttl. ,:hLutr'n t'l Mun. t^ns. v' Mwilkin$n a L A wrlh)ushby. oxturd: ()xlbrd UnivdnY |}css.

Schtnidt, J. (199E). (abbr8. llc&l' and (iulps of walcr: H.ael on ih<rcftoi . Politual Th@^.26: 4 \2

Schitndof. I{. {1998). Th. (thenn8 {BetominS (tlhcr, and Reoncilirrionof Cod in H.8cl\ I'h?nontnol,]r]t ol sqrit . t.ans. , Ste*an. In

Slc*.rl (ed.) (l99lt): l?5 400Schop.nhau.r, A. (1965). (ra th. Bdris ol Morotit!, ttrsns E f l Pavne.

lndiaMlDlisr BobbsMcnll.

S.dgwick, S. ( I 98E!), 'H€gcl\ Cndquc of th. Subj.ctivc ld.rlisrh of Ka.t sErhica', Jotlmal of the Hbtory of Philosupht,26: a9 1O5.

- (1988b). 'On thc R.larior of P!r. Rcrm to Conrdr: A Rcpty n,HeSd'! CririqE of f('|mlis i. X.ni's ErhicC. Phitosophr a"ttPhenoaerclosiel Resqrch- 49: 59 aO.

Scfb8, W. S. ( 196l), .tcrsrce. Perceptiot ond Rean,}' London: Rourlcdec& Kctln P!ul.

Shrpi.o. G. {1979), Nor.3 o. rh. Arir..l Kingdom of rh. Spirn', a'lio 8l2l l8: rlprint.d io SGwan (cd.) (1998): 225 19.

Shtfa.. J. N. (1974). TL Ple@neaoloAr A.yon<l Morality, r/Aral,Philotophitdl Qtanetlv.2Tt 591-621i Nprinrcd in Slcm (.d.r(1993c)r lV 169-219.11916), treedon dn.l ltuiep?nden&: A Stu.l.r bl tha Pnnkdl ld.as olll.Eel\ 'Ph.no6eaolo&t oJ Mird , Camb.idgc: C|mbridge Unive6iiy

siep, L. (f979). ,lnrer*.runs als PtiEip.lct ttdtti.!-lea I'hiksot'hi.Uate6uchuiqen .u H.t!.I! Jetuet Phih'!q'ht. .let G.Ates, Feibta:

(z0(){ll, De. Wq dt PhAaonetuloEie des G.ist.s. Ein eirluhrederK'nnert r zt H.Eels Dillercazt.hnt! u"d Phnrone,olosie d.\o"irr.r ', Fmnttun: Suh*amp.

Simpen. P ( 1998t. ,r.a€r lr ?oa.erderral /ri.t!.llr,. Alb.nyr SUNY PrcsSinger. P (1981), d.a€l Oxford: Orford Univ.Biry Pr.si.sm'th, S. B. (1989). He8el md thc french R.roluiion: An Epiraph for

Rcpublicanism .li,(,al {Aeain. 56: 2ll 61.Soll, l. (1969)..4a latroduction to Heget s Mctuphvsit!, < hicago: Chicago

UnilcAiiy Prcs.(|976). ( harles raylo. s tea.l .Jorrnald Philt'y!'hr,1\ 691 1lolrep.imcd in InwNd (ed.)(l9lt5,: 5:ki6.

solomon. R. (. ( lgnl). /r,re spi,it of He84,1 shth .l (; t t HeEel t'Ph(nonnru,lo(t ol spirit .Oxfo.d: Oxford thi\crnrr/ Prc\s.

I l!vtl|, llcScl\ Pr.,o,,s,o/,sr o/ li,r4r'. In solonon and HiSahs(eds) ( l9r9lr : l6 l 215

solomn. R. (-. .nd HigSms, K. M. teds) ( le,).tc). th. lxt ot Gcmnl./r!/ira (Routlcdgc History of Philo$phy vol. vtr. London:Routlddge.

Sleincr. (i (l9tl4).,.lrriraor.r. Orford: oilbrd Univcsity Pr.ss. 19 -42:rcprintcd in Steh (ed.) { 1993c): Ill, I8l!99.

SrcinknusW E.(cd.)(1971),Nev Studies ih ltesal s l)hilt)r?ry,NepYorkjllolt. Rinhan & Winslon.

226

srBt lo6iaPl lY

$rFlcvich. L. S. (cd.) (fe9o l, G W F He$l: Pt.lo'e an't tntniuction to

the Phercflenolos/ oI Mind. Nry Yo.k: Mtcrnillm'

s..m. R. (19t9). 'Unity t d DitTd!.rcc i. Hcgclt Folitiql

na,ro (Ew 3cn6). 2: ?HE...'.._ (1990), Ire8"1 Kut and the S,'uctu.e of the OA"t, ln\don:

RourlcdgF.- ( | 993r). 'ccr!.ml lrrtodufiion , in St.fl (€d.) ( l99lc), l: I 20.,..'-* (l99lb), '.rtmca dd Andby on Und.r$!ndin8'. Phil6oPtv' 6a:

t93 209.- ( 199E). (i. W F. He8el" i! Tcichn.n and whitc(cds)(1998).lE 17.

- (1999). Going B€yond rh€ Kmtian Philosophv: Oi McDowell's

HcSctidn Cdtique of Ktit, F'urop.da Joumal of PhilosoPhr' 7:

241 69.- \zt{$. lranr.endenbl 1rE1td4^ und l{epti.hn Oxfo'd: Oxford

Univ.rsny Prcs.'- (.d.) (r99lc). c W. F. HeAel: Critudl As6st"'s.4 voh' London:

$.wan. J. ( f99t ), Thc Archilcctonic of llclcl s /'r.rote,olosr ol SPi4t ,

Phihsoph! dn.t Ph.noneroloAi.al nes.dt.h.55:741 76: cprinted in

Stryan (.d.) (19198).444 77(1996), Hcsctt D@lnne of Dcteminalc Ne8ation:An Example from

''S.ns-C.nai.ly and _Pcrccption . /.r.z/irrn stdi'r 26: 5? 7E

'-.- (2000). Z'. Lt tl ol lhc.l\'Phtnnm.nok't1\ d S/'!t/, Evansronl

Nonh*cstem Unile.sily ftcss(ed ) ( I 99tl ). Zr 'Ph.hn.aobt<t ,/ liD,/,/ N.?.'l'l. Albanv: sUN Y

st i l lman. P ( i . (ed | (198?). lh 's l \ l 'h ih^ot 'ht . / t , t , . Albmv: SUNY

sur$. J-r'. (1971). Burkc.llesel. i|)(l thc frcnch Rcvolulion inPclc4nksl(cd. l { 197l) : J2 12

T!yfr)r. ( (t97lr. The (hctrrng Ar8uDcrlr ol th. I'hdon'nd1r<r-

Ma. lntyrc (ed., ( l t )7:bl : 157 87

- tl975l. H€.I canrbfldse ( rn,hnd8L ( trncsrrv Prc$

Tcichmu. J and Whnc. (i (.d\l ll99a\ ln lntn,luti'n to Mulem

t.wr@n Phitt^olh\ ' 2 cdn. lliun(hnlsr Mrcn'llan

V!lb.fs, L J. ll9e2). ft. P,,::l'dl lvr,'tnl. ()rford: Oxfod Univch'tv

Valght. (. (i {19E6). Sublcel. Ohlcer. rnd Rcprcsentationr A Critiquc of

Hcgels Dialectic of Perccfln)n, ln|l'mItional Philoto?hitdl

Qu! ! rh26:111 2e

227

V.itnc, D. P (.d. ) ( l9m), de8el's S@ial ohd Pohbal Thaah\Nd tct!€!Hunar ics PBs/Susxx: Hlrv.sLr h6s.

Y.s.y, C. N. A. (cd.) (1972), RoWl lrttitute oJ Phitosophy Ltturc\yol- t: I97O 7l: Re6u a"d Reality, Lrndotr ed Bisioglrotc:M!.mil|!n.

Vick6, B. ( f 973). row.dr G/.d Ttasedv: DrM. Mtrr, SNiaay,ttrdonl4tmrn.

Vicillrrd-Bsm, ,-L. ( 198), 'Ndunl R.ligionr An Invdngrlid of HcSct {Pheaonenolog of Spnit ,tEns. .,. Srewan. in Srcwan (€d.) (199t)35t 74.

von dcr Luft, E. ( | 9E7), 'TlE Binh of Spirit for Hc8.t our of rhc Iilvcsty otMcdicift , in Stillm.n (.d.) (l9lt?):2Fa2.

W^1, !.ll95ll, Le tulhdt .le la <M.kne d.ns lo plilotuphi. .te Hes.l.2nd cdn. Psrb: Ptlss UnivcBitsim d. Fr&lc.r I t9 47. lnns. RNonhcy in St.m (ed.) (l99lc): ll.2E,r ll0

walsh, W H. ( | 969), ,/€selia, t/t!.r, London: Macmillsn.Wanenbc.S.T' E. (1993). Hcgel\ ldcslism: The Logic of Conceptualiry .

n B.arcr (cd.) (1993): 102-29.w6rphtf, K. R. (f9E9), Itda"l s Epistenotogi@t R.nt6n: ,t Snldv ol !h.

,lin and Mettod of H.Bel ! Phe,o^eiolo&1 of Spint . t\ndrc.ht:

(l99l). HcSch Cririque of Kanr \ Moral World Vi.w , prrlddpl'i.a/Topks.19. 171 16.

' (1991.), Hcg.l. Idslim, md Robcn Pippin', Interutionol phito-sophrcat Q@ e.tu. J}t 263-72(l99lb). The Basic Cbnrcxt and Srrucrurc df Hc8€t s Prr'loroprr..,/farr'. in Bds (ed.) (1991)1 214 59.(1s95), How'Full u Kant\ ( aregoncal lmtcarile? , ,falt,6!., /niRe.ht und Ethiv.4nnual Ret'i.r d Lo\| aad Ethk:,l: 465 509.(1998a1, tlcgcled Hunc dn Pcrccption and (bnccpl-tmpidcism.Joumul.tl the Hish^ ot l,htlo ph.t,1l:99 t2t.(1998b), llc8cl s Solurbn torhe Dilcmmaofrhc( irenon . in Stcwan(ed.) lfqvrE): 7691: cartd vcBion in thno ot Philolophl?&rrsrlr, 5 (198E): l7l EIi.12000), llcScl\ InteDal C.iriquc of N!,!c Rcahsn , ,tolrral ,/t'hih\.)pniL ul R.seoa h, 25: 11 3 229.

westphal, M. (l99lia). H.gel s Phenomenobgy of Pcrc{rir)n , in Stewa.r(ed.) ( t99E)r 122 l?.(lggubl. llistor!- ord Truth in Hcael\ rhenont?to,tos . tt\t oJn,Bleminston: India.a Univcairy Prcs.

224

- lcd.l ltsszt. Method asd Wdlation i, H'82t s

N.* l.R.y. Huhaniti.s Pilswig.ums. B. t d.t tt934t, v.thodl'nq.4 dc: dr

"nTnbinrcnr Mohr'

Willilr|& R.-R. (1987). Hcg.l\ conePt of C'!if, in Stilltnrn ('d )(19E7)'

| 20: €p.inlcd in stcm (.d ) (l99lc): lll. 5lE-54-

- (1992), Recognitio^: fi.hte Hcsel atul the O'lter' Albonvr SLtlrY

--- ( I 99E). 'Towardt a Non-FoundalioMl Aholute Knowins ' Th' Ovl of

Miie^!. l0r 8l -102Winficld. R. D. (1991). t'Pedoh an l Mod.mit! Albanv: SUNY Prcs

Wingcnstcin. L. (l96li). Pr,ldoPti.d/ /n1$,radrrea' lrd edn llltt C E

M. An$ombc. Oxford: Ahck*ellWotl.r. R. (199?),'The FrcNh Revoluriontrv Rdls of Poliliql Mod'miry

in Hc8el\ PhikNophy, or rhe Enlighrcnm tt DNk . A!/tu'i"/'ne

lleg.l s.xiet,- olftldt Britoit S5:11 a9(19;8), co;tcxlurlizing Hegcl\ Phcnomenologv of the Frcnch

Revolurion and rhc Tcrof. fd l,i. ul Theort. 261 3l 53

- rcd.l (f995). Ro4\seuu ond l!l'?rt. Mancheslcr: Manchcrer

Univ.6ny Prcsswood. A w (is70). ](dttt Morul Rcliqnrn.lthac

^nd Lontlln Comell

(19E9), The Em incss oflhe Monl Will . LP Md"ir/'

rcpnnied in slcrn (cd.) (l59lc): lv 16l) 8lt

llsst)). Ilesd! | t1hr1|l lit,rsr,. ( rmb.idse: Canrbridgc LJn've6rrv

( l99l). lleScl r tihiei.'n Bcrscr lcd | { l9r)llr ll I ll l

wl l lcman. A. tJ) l l ' rxcr ' /hat t "n tN t thhdl I ' t r ' R'hxh ral I 'h l ' -

v?lr , / -v. l / , \a1. LLUrcn anJ l ) , {dr . (ht Lculcn I nr tc^n) PRs

229

lndex

Ab3oluL XroPinS l9HActivc Rcc!.tr I 13 24, 135

AndSon 13H4,146/lntigon \33,1t945

Ariltotl. EE, l0l, l0E,t22

b.aulifirt sul 163, 180BcnBtcin. ,. M. 8lBllnshatd, 8 56

Bradley, F. tl 54{budL vicw of obj.cr

51,{

c.teton.s 16, 18. 20 1' 225S-, 65, 81, 97, 99, l0l'109,151,197-E

Cl$ittisilY xii, xiii-)dv 92l9l-4

com.dy 188, lE+90CorsicM t7t-{2C6ig. E. J. 44C!.on llH4, 146

PhibsoPhy 5, 63, q

Crcc., B. 152, 198Cultu.e 147-51

DcNys.M I44

dcsirc ?3 5. 185d€vries. W A 44.108dialecric xiii xv, l5 16,20,

21, 26,41. l5 l , l8 l ,20l irec also univdsality,

Dideroi D. xiii,26, l5ldivine law l3GE, l4ODonougho. M. 139

Phil^ophi.ol S.i ces 6'1 , la. A\i tee also ligic'

Tn

-g6X

z3l

Philosophr ol Naturei Piibop,vot Riet.. Philoe'phr oI Spint

Etrt k, F. xiE liglrcfi|.nr xi, riii, xi!.3 -4, 14.

15.29, l8+5. 192: J@ ato hilhdd lnlight.nm.nl

cpic IEE 9Epictctus 85.thicr l l i f . l32 l . 135 -45, 163,

206 n.2Ethical Wdld 116 8

FrNr ll9 20ranh md Enighte|ttmt l5l 7,

lE3t_eue.bach, L. ri. rt4l ichl . , J. C. x i i i ,4, 60. 98, 99. l5E,

t68Findlay. J. N. 77Flci$tM. E. 140

tbrc. dd $e Und.NtandinS 45,59 66.67 { t , l l t . t96

FoBrc. , M. N. 9. 2?. E6. l17, 125

ft€edom 13. 14.li2 -1, 67. ll0,I57 {8

tench Revolution 2 l, E5. 15? 68Fnkuyua, [ ?7

( 'a l l . ' , I l lcr?tu, ?. 201 n. ?r !? dto Spiril8€neral w'll lslt 6lCcman ldeal ism 1,.1.60

Coclhe. J. W l . l l9. l5 l . l6 l( i reeks 25.26,29.88. I 14 9. 122,

l l2 L l ]5 47. 148. tE6 7. 189.

l la l ler , K L r i i illamann. J. c xiiil lardinon, M () . 12. 168,201

232

Hnris. H. S. l5- 67, E9, lE4.206 n. I

Hryin. R. 10. 26Hc8.l. C. W r. ch|..cr.r l-2r

l i f .4 9HGiE. H. 169H.r.lcr, L G. riii. 125Hcrnq. B. 13lHinchrun. L. P l6G IHolddlin, J. C F. l,4, 14

Houl8d., s. t4 t, t9l

hulM law 116 8, l4oHumc. D. x i i i ,55, 105Hyppolite, J. 86

idealism 9? 102: absolulc lm.198: K@to xi i i .17.6?,9{i 102: subjerive 100:.rR dka c.tlra ld.alism

Iacobi , F. l l . x i i i . l l . l5

J.bb. R c. l,llJ.na.t Sfl.De,Nn4,1

K.nl . I i i i . r i i i . l . 15- 17 40.60,66_ 7.1.91r 102. l ] | i t t .l6 l t ?8,106 n 2

L.q olth. H€afl 120 2,124

l lws 62 4. 105 7, 108 l l

t4d srlrB 145-?

Licht.nb..g, G. C. I 12lif. ?2. 77r $r a&o lif€ ed dctth

*tuggl.lif. lrd d.r[r 3t u88l. ?5i3

lrei. 7. lE. Zo t. 22, 23, 24,29. lE.65 5. 16l . l6E.t96. t97 8. 199 2@.204 n. 5

L6*nh. K 50

M$d.!illc. B. l2l

msto.d sl.!e 26. 7l 85. {16-7,205 n. I

MoEl i ty 168 78, 1E4.206 n.2

Nr8el, T 26Naluml Relision l8l 6

Nrcrzsche. F 169. 200

Not ion 19. 10. l l . 36,41. 106.198.204 n.6: re. ,koun'ves.lity. panrculurty

INDEX

Pdpept id 2?.2E.45,50.51 9. l l l .196

Phit6opht of Noture 7,24. 6aPltil6opt, of Riaht 6.1.1234,129,

145, t46. 158. 16l, 162-4. 15EPhilotophr of Spitit 1, 9, 21, 25.

phr.nology ll l-13

Pinld4l 2. 5 6, 204 n. 7Pippin. R. B. 10. 25. 26, 2?, 66, 67Ptaro 8E, l0lPle6urc dd Ne.3lnY I 19-20. 124

postulares ofPdclicrl rceo 169 7Ep.act ice 6? 9.?2.E5. l l l , l19. 125Prcfec 8.30 6,9E.99.205 n 9

ntioBlism I I 12. 22. 30 1. 36,87 E,90.9? E, l0 l -5. 185

Rcen al Lawgrler ll7 8Rcen d Tc(ins L*s l2E ll

relision ri xii, l)6 lt, see otsoChristraniiyi tuith lndEnlightenmentr Ndtu..l Relig'oniRelignrn in lhc I(m oiAn:

Religion D thc rim of An 16G90Rcv.aled RcliSDn l9(L'14- 206 n I

Ri !€y. P 158Robcns, l .204 5n 8

Romanl ic ism xi , I 4, I14, 198Romd world 89. 145 7, l4li, l9O

RolN!! . JJ l l l . l4 l i . 157 62.t64 5. 167

233

Schclling, F. \{ J. l, +5, 14, 12 4,60,98,99

Scbi l l . r , F.4, l l7, l2 l ,206 o. IScboF her, A. 170, 2Ct0Schulzc, G. E. 9lS.i.n. of Lei. 6,1i s@ oho L iclci.ntinc im!9. 60, 6lS.U8, W 60ScG.-cenainly 28,43 51, lll, 196,

205 n. IShanesbury. Thi.d &rl of 122ShBd.l.76, l:14, 159

Sr/,irla,r: ree .lhic.l lif.Smith, A. 123Solmon. R. C. 129, l4lSophales 133, 139, l4l, 144Spirit 7,14, ?4. l3l. l15-6. l3E,

147, l8 l 2. 184, 195, 198, 199.2Oi n.2

Spi.itul Animl Kingdom 124 7Stcm. R.27,56,67, 102, 16l , 196.

201Sl.win, L 27, 66. 144 5Sioi.ism 85 90,9lsubltdunvsttribut vi.w of objc.t

28, 52 5, 66Sut r, r-F. l5E

Taylor. C 27.51. EE. 158, 199iel.ology 107 8

th.ory 67 9,72. t5, I13, I19Erg.dy 139, l:l0, 142, 144, lEE, lE9tlr!.cnddtd lglmor 27'&!vi6nB, G. E. 106

Unh.ppy Conlcioqlncar E5, 9l-7,l47, lE3

univcBrlit, pdicubrity ndirdividulity 19 20, 2E-9.4,1-{0, 62,65, 75, E9, 92, 95, ,97, 105, 109, l t6,120. 122. 123.t2G1, tJ6, t42, t62 7,l8t,196 1,2U

^. 6,204 n 7,204 5,

n.6univcNlizbility 128 32

Valb.rg, J. J. )6

virtue and ftc way of the Worldt224

Walsh, W H. ll0 lW.n.nberg, 1 E. 67. 204 n.5westphlI, K. R. 27.44, 67, l3l. l6Ewilliam, R. R. 75, l99Winfield, R. D. 196

Wokle.. R. I58

work 8€5.91

234

ioutl.dt.?hllorophyculd.loolt

Edit d bt fn ae ed rdd|' wolfiU,b..drt Colbs. Len

X.fd rd d. ti.oo.nocbry ot S9lrli

LrLaLt rtd rha Prlndph. ot Xuman x||oarLdga

Adttotf. o.f Eihlcr c.rard J. Huths

Hum. of i.fhlon hru o'contor

Lftnfr jd fh. ko.dologt /nrt$y &vib

n|. har thfd.fE r G.qg. Padt o.

lhg.f q| Hhry Jdql uccsprt

Hur| qr o..llBf Jor.t d,'ill/r

Xr|t ..d lh. C.lilq|| ol hdt Laaoi S.ba$b' G:atd,t t

t{ on Ub.rlt Jona!,vn RtLt

Illl o|| t dlltdr$|n ia&r Cd.rp

tMtlganataln.nd lha Phlloaophlc.l Inv.itlerlloor

Pfaio and 6. frpuulc Nlatnld Pawat

fnd(a o.'r GovrmrFni D. A. Uord no^6

f.oala o.! Huir.n Undsst nall',g E. J. lnw

Sdnoaa rd rh. Ethlct G.n vlN Llord

RLONDOT AnD [ lW YOr(

Robert Stern

noffi*{

P'ffirTffinn;jt''fu4r,yr1Ji

4ylttttui;,rkrll ';;

ffi1*

dr. t i l lotopi l Guld. lool to

egeltheomenologt

Spirit

_ -_

r!r":\! ,r . :r5r-r!r/ |

RouihdgcPhilo!ophy6uid.Book!

lc ! l l . . lg. th l lo iophy Guid.aool ro

I drr!{ br Tm ( @. lnd r(nlrhan wbtftl,tr|r!h. (-t{hxt h'ndon

H.g.l .nd th. Ph.nomenology ot Spirit

B.*cl.y .nd th. Principl.i of Hum.n Knowl.dge

Arittotfa on lthici (;.rd/d.l lhttahlr

Hume on Rafigion Da\.l (r'( DMn

f.€lbnlz and th. Mon.dology ,tnthon!:;urilt

Th! Lrter Heid.gg.r G.ot$ Puniron

H.g.f on Hi ory J6eph M.<d.n.!

Hurne on Mor.lity J,'.r t i//,.

Kant and lh. C tique of Purr Rcaron :ilhnnidn Cdnlaar

Miff on Ub€rty Jo"otho" Ril{

Mill on Wlitai.nitm i,)srr ( 'ap

Wlttgenst€in ind the Philoiophi(al Invertigations

Pfalo and th€ nepublic Nnrnl4\ rdryv\

Lo<le on Government D I I lont Thnn\

Locle on Human Understanding li ./ /.drf

Spinoza and the Ethlcr <itat\rtr Lk^\l

Hegeland thePhenomenologltof Spirit

HILONDOII AND NTW YOR X

r Robert Ster n