Ir

F
( $brcviationr arc ulcd for rcfaEac6 to by Hcgcl aDd K&t. Fa full dctsib of r,orkr ad nctiodr of ciirti@, i.c dlc bibliotnphy .l of th. volurlc.

D
o
IT

by H.e.l
'Aphoritm! AoD Hcg.l's Wdtbook' 1\. D.rlin PraM.@loA/ of Phildtop^t,'llr'!d!c1i6'l fii. C.itical JMI On fic E!!cnc. of Philosophicll Critici$n Gnc!.lly, .nd ll5 Rcl.liorihip to ih. Pr!!.n! 5!!0! of Ptilo.dry' t h.a.n ncht 's and Sch.Iti,t s n. Dnave $at n of Phtlotoptt Iht l't Logte: Pa't On of th. Ercyclqcdia of tl|t Phtlolqtktt g.*t' E t l't Phlrlopht of No.it't] Pan Tn of tt of thc Phttatotttcol scL1rc.' E rlc@dta

0,
t
I
-

IT

o
o

ES

ETW FK HL ILHP Int adt tion n ie Lc.turs o't theHt ory of phtk top^, ILPWH t2.tunt on thc Phtldoplty of Vo d Hittoa; Ir.rdutio,t: R8on
fl ftS ll. ts lll LA LHP LPR NA NL Je,@t st'k6en|t4e t: DB syst sFntanm phit8ophie ^.tet Je"e, Srst6arh44e It. Lost| Mctt physik NaniphirFopiie J.noet Systenntwtde r: Natwdtitdophie und phituoriie des HeA.l\ l6theti.t: Lecttet on Fire Arl kcnlt4 on the History ofphi!6oph, L.ctu.d on the phitNophy ofRetigion 'Notizn ud Aphonsn.n 1618 l8jl' Naturol Law: The Scientfic Wo!, o! D.anna Naturc! Iae, lts PL.e in MoruI Philotuphr, and lt Retation to the positiye ThePhilsoph! of flisto,y Elenenb of the PhilosophyoI Risttt Pheronenoloal ofs nl RMo, in flittory: 1 Getmt lano.lktion to the phit*oph! of 'Tt. Relaiionshipof 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)

Het l s PhlkBopht o[ Mird- Pad n.e Phllotophical Saietca Ea t theological Vrungt

of th. E.cy.top.dta oI.ie

ia.

lho Phcnomcnology

n m
f

In contcxt
(Pheno,lFenology, Preface and Introdu<tioh)

%iffi
and hlr tlm65
laid of Hcgcl (1770-l8ll) rhat h tived lifc !i an vcntful time. Cerr,ainlyhis tu Elativly humdrun cornp|fcd to thal of or Marx, fo! cxample.Howver, its unclr| b crsgge.ared: did, after sll. havc h son at a young agi know many of thc in&llc.tual figurcs of his priod, including Schlling,and Hitlderlin: and hrve a carr .ontr&sting lowsandhi8hs. froma tongpcnodof monymity up until his lareforrics. to national trowing intcmarionalrenownby the tim of his 16! thsntwo decades latr.lt maybe lhat Hcget's
L|! 8.nsrl,cd finle intrlst bccau! ihe characle.

&$

PH PR PS RH RSP SEL SL

ffii
,iii,ili;

,iIft,
ti jt'ry

Workr by K.nt
CP.R CPR G|'dM RP The Ctittqte of procti.ol Re6o, Th. Ctilique oI pure Reason Grorntuo* olthe MetaphlsiT of Moral lrhat Ral Prcgreu H6 Metaphtsi' Mad.Iz Gernany Sir.e the n e ofLekniz ond tyotfr

J,rlrir' i

livcd it hasbeensnas rarhcrunprcpossssing: lhc rmn is commonlyviewd(evenby someol itcts) !s doggc4 conformisr,bombastic,and Howver,oncen8rin this asscasmcnr bc mosl with cautior, .3 hc slso clcarly had his vinucs. loyrlty, intellectualinrcgrity, foniiude in thc

i
.II'E P X E N O M ENOL OGY IN COIIT EXJ I} t' P H E N OME N OLOC f III C OX IE X T

face ofadversily. an awkward charm.and a capacityforjoy, hurnour and dcep emotion, hiddcn behind lhc ralher forbidding exterior thal looms out al us liom rhc ponrails we halc ofhim. Thus, while clea.ly pron kl irritalc. otlind. lnd p@le lhos{ wnh whom he came into conlacl.hc was !l$ capableofinspinng devolionand rcvcrcnce. and abrd'n8 alrrd!'n llrr lilc and charactcrarc cenainly more complex rnd rnrcrcsrinS rhxn rs oilen assumcd.(For a thorough sludy, ee I'inknrd 2(XX)a.) Nonclhcl.ss. it is p.obably ri8ht thar priority in considring Ilcgcls sork should bc siven kr lhe rimcs in which he lived. rathr thnn trJhis hfc irndchar.|drr: for his $ork was more obvmuslyshapd by lhri thanby bogrnphicnlcircumstlnccs rhc naturcofhis p.Bon, or rlilv. l)cspilc lhf apparcnlabslractncs\ ofmuch ofhis wriling. llcgcl was dccply cn8!8cdwith the poliric l nd h isioricaleventsaroundhim. k, tlhrch hc sou8hr to rcspond in phibsophical tcrmr. Thrs is the mcunins of his flmous imase ofrhc o$l of Miherya: thc sacredbird ol Mrnena (or Alhcna).the soddcss wisdom.flies ar dusk,rner the of happcnif,Ss thc day. lbr only thcn crn ph'losophyrefl.cr on whar ol has occuFed.and,ullil its role a! lhc rrorai, ofthe world (PR Pref!cc. p. 2l). Now. whilc it mly bc misleading emphasi/ethc ordinanness ro ol licgel s lifc, il is not mislcadinS emphlsizethe extruordinarinss lo ol his limes: lhescwerc indeedrcma*able. on severallc!cls. fi6r. ar rhc hrsroncll and F)lnrcal level. IIeBellnd olhcr rhinlcN ol his 8ener, rrrinr \rtncsscd rhc ljrcDch Reloluti(tn. the bldrly lncrmath of lhc Itr,tr. rhc ri{ an.l lirll of Napoleon. and rhe July Rcvolutronol l8l0. $hr l\ r lr rrn 8rh n u S hth c d c mi s co l rh u l lol y R omanhnrprrc and thc r f t r s dr / r t,o l ,l t,l rtre rl rn d s o c i rl l i l c i n nran) Gcnr n {rates. as lh( t r r leo l l l b c l l l r.i tr,l ] e b b c drn d l l ()scdrtround drcnr Ihcc!en( n' I r r nr . $ .r o r n n n ,.u L r rn i p o n a n ct(' nl l (i cman i ntcl l c.tuak e ol lhN I](nod I tcn rs r sndcnl. l{egcl lim)cd prn ota clandcslrnc polit ler l ( luh l o d h .u $ l h . a o l u l ro n o l l ? 8 e (B rl i ngnsck,th.stonthl t hc . t onc d o th c a In th n rrn g r " Irc . o l l ;bcny to mark the c\' ent). wh'lc hc chrnre(l rhll he llwxys l(nk a rorst th.oughouthis lif-e l(r . Ll. br ! r . th c l i l l i n S o t rh r Bl s ti l l c o n 1 4Jul y (i n 1820,l cssl hanone ycrr rli.r rh. pasin! ol lhc rcprcssirc KarlsbadDec.ees. st..iled hc his comprn! s b\ htrvrn! them the tx'stchnmpagne th.t thcy could $ 2

.Utqras). lt is lherclbreno suQriscthat Hegelgavc thc Revolution

hy.
Sccond,He8el lived in a penod of philosophicalas well as whercrt *emed rharncw andexciriDg icll ad poliricalupheaval. for thoughl eer openrnS up, and *hre comptrn8 brl|lre\ lions of lhesepossibilnieswerc cmer8in8. Hegcl was a major

in the movemenr Gcrmanld.alism.which runs roughly of

publicarionof th lirst edition of ImmatruelKanfs (iiliqld

(f fue Ae*"n ir, l7l3l. to therclrps. ol Heselianism thc 1840s. in thatsomcsceas nlalrngolassrcal Grcckphiloephy for lbvsncnt -!| (;eman ldcalrsmwa5 inru8urlrcdby alairduy and si8nili.rDcc. philosophywith itslucmprro selmeraphysrcs the on , bt'r'cnr'cul palhof ! sciencc(CPR:Bxviii).rnd to balance competins rhe lu! Fp.rtives of dctrrminismin Daturulscicnceand lrccdom in
Howevcr. Kanr's succrssorscame ro fccl that his actual Flrly. was to leavc phjlosophyrulnerablc to sceprrcism, while ll.vcncnt jht ro ovcrcomcrhis centat durlisn bct*een liccilom lnd derermoralily a d lhe scientrii. prctLrrc. aur(rnomous rhe subjecl 3rm. lhc nalurul sclll They thcrefo.c nuShl to 8o bclord K nr'. in syst.nr rhrr w(Nltl rehic!c whar lhnS lo lind anotherphilosophical I ld s!'r out to do. and on a comtatuble scrlc. .n.onrpassrnsthc s'cnces. rhc ltns. aDdhirror!. $ $cll !5 cp'sr.nrololry. meta Itnl (Scc erh'cs.Ixllrtierl philosphr. nnd ph'kJ$d) ol rl'lrB|(,n. lFcs. 2(XX),li)r x hclplirl o\cn rf* or (jcnDr. ldcllirm a\ n moveL.nls

xtl
l hrrd. l i cscl l i !cd i a r cr nr r kr hle exllur alpcr ior l. ur t cdat a sit lnd Rdnrnti.rin. lhus. l|.dol rrosrn,lds h.tw.c!r thc Lnlighr.nnrcnr I U. oN hrDd hc w.rs lirllr asrr. of rhe range of nc$ klcrs lhc ll[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 cntical (h thc olhcr hrnd. bc wrs !ln, c\poscd 1o thc nl)rc recenl h.r aFk'pmcnls .rsiocirtcd wilh Ronrnrrcrsnr.which ollcrcd .r distincraisedby thc drblle bctwccnrhc linlishren, ll. 4n.orch to rhc rssues md rts crilr(s. with its own or8anrcrsrconccptronol nlrurc, pr.turc ol hrstory,and lirilh rn rhe F)*cr of !n. lleg.l may -l -tqxr!c

f H.

P H E N O M ENOL OGY

III CONIT XT

'|ua PHENO M aNO LO G r r V( O r {r Er r Y aophy funher forward. tloth Schellingand llcgcl had sharedthe fit. of le{vrn8 Tiibingn to berome privatc turos in wslthy ld lr|lic. (Hegel in l79l and SchcllinSin 1795)rbur whil( Schellin8 ofJcn! in 1798at ih age a professor the LJniversity at I.ppointed and was wclf known as rhe author of the S^tln .'l Ttunsent2!, rd.arru !s wellas (nherworks. Hegel rrmaineda privatetutor lrr whena legacyfrom his falheral lasl enablcdhim to follow 1601, I ro r"nu, at thc la[cas inviraiion. Therc hc qurlified as a blling lrEtr'o:dr, (unsatancdunivcNity tcacher)with a thesison natural po.ophy. a subtccrclos. tu srhclhns s conccmi: alier obt rnrn8hr\ to teach.lhe r$o hr8Jn runnrnB(uur(s h,Etlher Helel\ lirsl bcc work undcr his own nrmc appearcdlhll ycar. under the Firhcd b'rl dcscripfivctirle \tt Th. Dtllt.tut B(tne.n ti.ht. s dnd lri.fdy Srst.n o/ I'hil,)v?rf.r In Itl02 ljeScljoincd Schcllins in )Hlt"K\ pLrrclii^|. the ( tnkal Jou tlol Philok4,ht. a philosophrcaf i rhich he conrnbutcd his sceond mal$ publicarion. Failh and -fin8 lo bwlcdge . as well as wririnS rhc lonS inrroductron the lir$ rssue. (irrcrsm (icncrully. and rts Thc lsscncc ol Phrlosophtcal lllcd hrionship to lhc PrcscntSt.ucol Ph,losofhr'In I'anicular'. In these Hegel sccmcd10 rdcntrfyhunsclf as a lnll,Ncr of Schcllins. ld clcarly pul lbrwurd h;s liicnd s posiridr rs rhc hcsr hopc lbr posl-yi. (nhcr tublierrions ol rhis pcrio(l thrl rppcaredin Il|ti{n philosophy. , Thc R e lr t ionshin seepr r cr \ r(n Ph, losophy' ol J ari txal Joi tkdl Law' l l l 02) and on rhc S ci cnri lic$r ! ol l) cxl! s \ ! r r lr N. r r ur al (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. gonr8 lir\r r() lhc Iinr\chrl,y ol w0rzburg. L|rlhns lelr Jenain 18o.1, ..d rhcn on ro l\tunrch rn lN06: *ilh S.hcllin8 s (lctaaurc. llcgcl l.tm kr bc n]oreopenl] .ritie!l ol hrsliicnd s posit()n.und to achrc!c a 3rcsrcr distancc Ironr ir (lor dclails, scc Lr!kiles 1975: .{2-l -1ti). esr repulalion al lhis sl gc mclnt hc llowcver, llegcl s rnthcr r 5od it hrrdcr lhrn Sch.llin! l,r trtNc on ltonr Jenr. rnd hc wls cv.nrltolether. b.conrnS r newsprpcr lbrucd k) lertc rrcirdcnrrx Illy dlor ro BambergIn March llllr? In thc sanrcycar. hc nublishedlhc *hich hc hoFd rould rcvivc hrs acrdcmrccarecr. l*aonLnohs. hiN rs , thirkcr nr his osn nshr. (As Prnkard2(XX)al It carablishin8 a0.l notcs. howclcr. ir kx,l ro|lr!'lrme bclbre rhc originllity oflhc

lll

bc s.cn .rs takinSup m.rny of rhe concemsraised by rhc Romanlics such as S.h'ller. Novals. and olhers,bur in a way lhar souAhr givc lo a ncs titrlrrron to rhe basic ideas of rhe Entighrcrment (such as 'rclsotr. and progrcss) ralhcr rhan st(jng thcm asidc. In Hegel.s wort, theretorc. find lhc conflucnceof rhe two major inteltcdual we currcntsol his cra. Wirh thesc cvenrs ffid issusin rhe backgrcun,t.jl is hardty surpnsrn!!rhai llcScl s phrkrJophyhas a dcpth and comptexiry nol ollcD \ccn in catmcr rincs. *hcn rhe saters of inrcltccruat and potrr r c r l h, l r u n n ro .cs trl l .tt rs a r rh i s p o rn ti n hrstory rharmanyofthc parrdr8nr\ of modcm rhilrlirg \rrr. lo bc fonncd: ,nd ltcSet was r(, t r c S ' nhrs o s n c o n i n b u l k n k J s h rp i n S cm w nh rhc w .i i i ng ofl hc r th l'htNrrrruh)Kl

The pfaceot the phenomenology Hegel's and works in lite

lh( pobliealionoi th. /,rotnn.nohtK in |t07 narks rhc beainning ol llescl-s marure phik)sophy: elcry1hin8 wnucn aDd pubtished bLlirrc thcn is classified irmotrghis earty or prcpan,iorywnrings.Th. /',I,1zd,kr!)/ogl rs l.kcn k, nurt a walcKhed in licSel,s inrctleclull dcllk)pmcnt lbr thrce rL..rson\. |irst, il was throuShlhrs *ork thal lteset srrncd lo e,ner8e I as dr s linc t i v cl i g u re w i rh i n th c n ru v c ment post_K l D ri rn ot Ocman klc lisnr. !s hc began k) scr hrnrsctiapan 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' c n n r I $ J Se tj c l trtrE 7 5 t15{ r l .!cl .\ ai n{j arrcn (t7 \ r t h S . l' e l l rtrF tl rn ;r rh c ,r \tu d c n rd n \s. $tren both nrrcndc.i b rhc ll, ' le\ linl Sc n l n rr\ rr l h c L o r\c rs 1 t\o l t.i j btrecnttrrgcl her i l h w r r ( ( ln. h l l ,tk l c rl rn 1 l 7 l J l l (.1 .r). h o $ d utd nueh txrcrconrcb br l w r . gnr ( hr lrs o n eo l (i c a n rl y \ !re i e s tp o cts. rnrt * h() i tso i nfl ucnced llr 8. l , I | rh rs ,\l r Wh ' tett.8 c t\ n o ti d !rnxcscrnrcdhrmrhcni ck rn nr t r ' r ' r hc ()l d Il x n ti rIr h r\ (trs n n rr.s rt ti i hrnS !.D . $hrl e hc und $i\ \ktr\ r{, cnrhh\h hA repuratknr, Schrtting\ risc wrs nrcleoric: hrs s \ \ k r t t ) t h n r\tn l tn tu l h t? re , ( l 8 (X)) as q!rektyscn ns mol i ng $ hcr',nrdtI. posl (nr,.rl thrl()rophyof J Ci tichtc ( I 76: I nl,lt. in rhc s . nr . r adr.rtn rx n n crh rr I t(h r. h i n l s c tfh a d cdk) hti c K rnr,seri l i cal r l ri

IAE

P I ] E N O MENOL OGY

IN CONT IXT

lNE

P H E N OME N OLO6'

II{ C ON IE X T

riir

Inshi(h l|(r(l h(san rarrascd rolayour dr l7r hr. f::_'11".",1. rh(Pr'l$rems hJd con."'".ir',.p.. i):.:::1":ll" \,ll^'1* 'i' outt ,k u(($vh.,n,j 'ha' to Jd.,tr Jn
, , t r \ u\ r \ r hc , r L hc $r I ! o n n t o d l f c n J , n r h c r e m d r n d . l

arier :.1111,1,.,"j:".:1. " srr [ns] pu]'iar'on. Jttctetl"a rryrngro convrnce muchofrhe tireran punh( tnJr hh phito\ophywas an advance on Sche ,"g *a *i1",, of ir' Scc ,bd.: 25r,{5 for an accounr " or rrowil. /,r,?,,,(?,/.,An. was tiNl reccived. ) tt tha phehnqdtr&l represents watcNhcd a nottusr because r._ n(.k,..m. (flri{t d,rr.rncchcrwcenHeget and Sche ing can cteart\ Ir'.rocnlrtrd,ti{ th,. tihr fim(. In ltep(,I: pubt,shed wnringr: n is atr,
rhat recognr/ahty. N egetran Ihus. fhc.FrslrionltcSetpursfoMard i" n" in*,,^",,,t,,o1 * ,,

crearry recosnid. .rcn as yea6

dunph of his pcriodin Brlin.*here .whardes Heeetrhint -l

f? was rhe fiNr qucsrbn oflhe chatr.nng cta$.s {R prntard

| 612). A lbid reasonwhy the Pr.,on"rdldlay is considered firsr rhc marure wntrngrrs rhatit is alsogrtcn a \wen i ptace llctt
liouShi, in a way that the arlierworks are not. Hesel was mosl lboul thc need for system-building. declarin8 rhal .[a]pan

lh.ir interdependcncc orSanic and union. rruths thc ofphilosophy

rilu.lcss. and musi rhen bc trcared as baseless h'porh6es. or

tin(l!

(El.: gl4. p. 2o). The tirsr pubtishd convicrions version as wirh irsdivisioninroLocic.phitoeDhv lhrl's sysrem a whole. l{dur!. and Phrlosophy sprnt todrvr.: rs rhe ed ,on ot rh; ot
lopedia oJ thc Phih\ophi.al &ien.es that lppeared in t8t7. prll,rvlfrr ,,/ fr(r/ d(\etopr som( ts| of rhe syvem. Jnd rh( lJrcr andl x' hrnxl rs5 u( s t rw h I n r hcr hr . ilpdn.undcrr h( der l -crhi cal 'ObFc'rve Sp'n' . Bur IIL'B(Ihrd hrun hr\ afiemptro lnicuFdr p. nSorourly.n'(ulat('d phrlo\ophr(rl .ysr(m rncr hh mo!e ro Jcnr I l ])l . so thdtrl ' houshrhrrpnr ecr$r r n', r r i't ! l'/ d r r r hef im e, r nJ Fl nucd to d.\(]ur rhr(,ur hr hc \ r f l, , u\ . Jr r n, n , f r hc r , d! . / , -

p.:r""- , hr university Hcidctbcrs. of lnd wh;ch llfl'il'""1r "' r c i, m r c I l h re ( \n i u me q i ,rt

t::.t\t h y rh ( r,m cofrr. rhi rdrdrl i nn In ti t{r. |hth.sorh:.,,! R rrl ii tx.:t. pubti,hcd rhrc( ye.h affcl ,.thc

nr s r c dirro n f w h i c h h c p u h l i s h c dn o i

t:l:^",,/ /.,,r,,. shrch apparcdrhrer ,n pans. ,n l:'l:",j':, r. a n d tU 1 6 'n: r nr : . . r . r re s p c c rrte t). n nen atter cf(.t hai i w more,, of 11.T._:j"'b".s b.*.. hcadmrner a symnas,un Nurcmbe.s n '. rn lnolii s.rond. fie t,,rrhr\liu ol the pTttos|ph,.(
?i .!i.k,.er. tb; t8t7 afl cr hi s

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

$hrrc,n prL.pril,ar..ar,1,,1r hh wrrrrng. ;ll.,ll:.f1,11,:: a s trr! o i I r \ ( r c J\ $ ,rr(ry:1,*',",. \l r In

lhc earlier r.1 .r/ Z.,si. is a de|ailcd S(.n claborarion rhelirsr of

ona6rh(',$. phrrov,ph) ol lll,llillf".,.",'","; h,.n^. rR.rure\ ""u.1",I)h,\ of .,n.i h,n,,^ uiphrt,\.,pr,y. *.. ::llll,l J,hr',MrhI "r,,.r,
r f , ' nr r n h r. trr._ j L T J n rrn !:,,i w Il q r r o txfi t rqhr(h tr{ u\ mor( , ' , , . r nr r J .rrl r(tr!ru u sq u (\U ,.n s . rn d r\ ,u(, ,,f (i ,nrcnrt{ Jr} pol nor In th c p u b ri s h cJ c n ! w ri ri n s s f [j 0r d o to t806 (w hrr; ;cus '' . r,.'s )I.r r qr ' (\ ,,r,,,rh d ,n k c .\rr, rr \ rh Ir\{ h t( ro \c .i n!rh,nE morcrhan

rih,r,N,nrrrirr :::..;:.jl: l:' " ,,r,,p r n t I )^ ", , : : , , t r . t ht ,:tn rh c rc l | o [rh c sort\ rhJrti , o" cd . th( ,, rh s rh c i n ,r' a r\re p ,n rhe rnre ccruar roune) rhar : . " . : " , ^. : r ..| | ,.[(t rrn nJ \ ! : r ,:,,,,!: rh (.L h \(u n r) o r hrs(rrl ] carccri n Jcn: rnd nJ t r ) t ur 1 s h c r( h ( \rn ,F rtr(iro ma tc a n ) ,. k,nJ i ,r mrrt. ro rhcer(n-

*,

r rurv d(vcrord

p*rrron

$r{l ,n ! ! , r r r . r r L. t L, *! '\ . r nit \ n r s r hJFd ( Itl t| l w h' l c l l cF.l " 1l It dE .am( {n(cm' unJ Ii rn ilr nl( n|llr dc, F ( t h( , LnJ t ccr ur e n|J. notcsin wh,ch ttcsctnn.tc rhc$ crrly a emprs tLlt rnd unpublishcd phiklsophrcat I tort our a sarislack)ry \ynem rrc now lo b. tbund att Jout Stjk .turiit i (Jcn. Sysl.m l)rxtls) tir)m t803 k) t8(1,1. .nd 1fi 05k) 18 06: JS l. . lS ll lnr l JS t t l. ) l D a to 1805. scc Morcover.thc /,r.r.rk,,r)Ay rc!c!ls lteBct s systemaric conl nr not Ju,t bcrru* hc $.G Jlr ead)t hr nkr n!I n t hh qa) In "hr b: hc rhu f(l t Jr rhNrrm( rhJtJny , ! \ r ( nr hc \ J. r ( ,r om nt er e l( ut . l s. , em. \,n of I !D. ., role q hr(h rhr / /l(,,,',?,,/,,s tra\ 'n'ro,jur Io hl l Inrrrl l l l . tl cH (l llJnnedr o nuht ^h an Itncd x, -d 'nr b .y.icm of around |5l) pagcs.rogcrhcrwirh a.l-ogic oduc; on as thc ti6l F of his sysrem,rn a single lolumc al lastertimc in 1806:but this lvlr ryperrcd. and inslard hc quickly complclcdlhc phcionooh,!\

ras.rlrcady thinking . sysrcnrxrrc wncnneclrmc in wr) ud), Hegel rhe f aa.npose Pn(rorkrdlr,fr 'lhus.whit. rhc/rrtunwdor\'||as bcli,rurhel)ei? /.Zira \yic,n rFperrco. w!\ rr tsllrhd emc years

IAE

P I l E N O M E N OL OGY

IN CONT EXT

lHE

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN C ON TE X T

rnd which came to be aniculatcdlaler in th lr4./.)p?.io, the ficrefore has a claim to be considered as viral to a work. in a way that ofHegel s maluresystmatic undentanding puhlications not. do Dilvious lhal thc Phenonenoktgl However,whihl everyonc rccognizes a tuming-point in Hegel s philGophical carr,in tems of ils siSnificance, and ity, ils depth d sophislioation. its systemalic remarks lleselhimselfhavc lcd sometowam thrt wc should by into his 6nal philosphical oLrtlook to Grpct lil the Pr./on.r,r,$ (where some80 on lo claim that thal linrl outlook rmainder certaindeplorableelcmentsthal are thanklully missinSin as an earlier work. while orhers 8(} on lo disparagc Plednc,o/oj$ a nislcadrnSSuidc to llcgel t ullrmale posF Phenonenok't\ ^r come aboul lbr sclcral rc,rsons. timr. whilc This dispulc h"s s syslcm ric imponancc rhe lafpl certainlysrrcsscs Pr.r,,k'!to&! work itselfand in its la.ious ritlsand sublitlcs.in laterprcscnScicn(c on ils part requircsthar setLconseiousness ItE shoutdh.r!. (lbr examplc. raiscd itsclf inlo rhis Acrhcr in ordcr k, t(, able to tilc 1!oo! of the syslcm he appearslo dosnplay this role and on!nok\l\' thal b|rtcnting of a pr(iected s-ond cdrttonof lhe /'r{? ro Jacruajtyl live wirh Scicnccanil in Scicncc. (.on!cNcty. rh! ,ndividu,l has rhe rishi lo demlnd rhar scicncc shoutd,jr It dkl not live 10cdmplelc.lhat n qoul.l no lon8cr hc calledlhc lirsl tcasr of the syslcn of sciencc:cll SL: 29). ln rhc sccondphcc. thc provrdchin wuh thc laddrr to thjs slnndpoinr. F' shouldshow hinr lhr s sl a n d p o i nw n h i n h i ms c tf. . . w hcn nal urat Ld psnof rhet . r'/.,p.diu. rhc I'hilt)!.Pht tl sttu,..onhins.r lon! t conscn)usncss (lhc lhrcc in which the carlier po.ls ol tht Pr.,,re!!,/,,(r cntrusrs [sctf ltr.ighr$ay ro Sciencc. ir mrkes an ,rlcmpr. ( dr*,,-("1srtcss. Md Prns ol lhal otr S.ll:(inrsei,)usnfs\ on Induccdby il knoss not qh.rr. ro urfi otr iir hcad tii,. -lioo tusr thrs lh.l lhc lilnn- su88.nrn8 pcrhaps oncc: thc compu'si(Dt() lssumc this un\ortcd postur. lrrcnt rcrppcrr rn much lhc sxDrc rnd tso -ptF, los. its sllhrs irsu sell'conlaincd r wrrsnrw suptoscd1,) abour in ir is ! liotcncc il is !,rp!,clcdl0 do lo irs!,lt llt Itrmaaol unpr,work. lhird. vnne tonrmcnlrktrs hrlc bccn FzTled rd indcpcndcnl sccmrnrt] $ilhout .eecssity.l..r Sci.ncc h! jn ils owr lrrcd 'rn(l r l l cgel shoul dhrl c suppl r cd hc / : , . 1( / , I t ! r d r t scll*ir h it s own \Lll shil ir trlay, rctnrit.ly k) immldrrte rcl-_conscj(rNncss ! ir 7r ol thc l,,.trn- lhe I'h.iott.'.rtr'!\ prr\erl\ rr\ell in an in\cncd Itrxlucn)ry rPPrfulusIn \\:6 txlnur.. or. D.causc rhh \cI: 'l tI mcilnt tt) scrvc llul role h a s l h c fn n c rp l f o f ,r s rcul t cri sl crec ;n rhc llchind rhcsc nratiersof schollrshrp(shr.h rft hardly conclueer lirn rtrn s c tl Sc rc n (c p p c a rsr) rr ndl to be acrui rt. l \i ncc av.: cl-.lohler 1998:547 55). lhcrc rs ti dccpcr rnd more siSnilicnnl $t t . ,' Il s .i (,l s n c sc x i s l s(n r i l s o s n r. counl orrsi dcol .sci cncc r wir ntfmcly. lhll lhc haslc rn which thc I'hltto"trnlort lr rhi\ eominS,ro_hc Ircm. ot.S.it r! dqkh ot ot knt^h\t!r!. ^ rnd ungolcmcd lcn.ls lo lhc qo !n unconsidcrcd irittcn inc\l|abl! thrr r! dc\.rihcd in thjs /,r.r,,k*J/.,$ ot-Stiflt. tFhty ttyp,licd In conlnlrons suroundrnsrhc rnlc p!8c, Preflcc. irnd (P S . H t5) rl s ttbL ol oonrcnr). shrch disqualiiles asa selllcdshlcmenl of l lcScl s r n eons r , t u trn t .ta d d c i d c s i g n e d l l k c us l()w .ds I to in tbe srandpoint \h,ry ot lhe P.r?r,n*,/,talJs composili()n this rcsPecl Fi0on.Ihc ol r hc k r n( lo l p h rl o s o p h rcs y s t$ n w h i c h llcBcl was rt workin8 on in lcgend.llegcl was ibrccd lo linrh thc book slxlIol phil()\ophical I thc

as a much hug.r and indcpcndsDt work. His 6rsr lirle for ihis worl was a 'Scrcncoof rhe [rpcricnce of Consciousness.r (which was rh. t'tle on8inllly cntisagcdIbr rhe projected eartier.shoner ilrroduclion lo the systcnr). allcr rhc proof sraSe ahercdthe bur he titl to thc onc wc now havc tbwcver. rhc publishcrof rhc tirlt edirion saw fil lo rnLlu.lchnh xlt(r \o lhat tirsr apparBd .Sysrem as ofsc,cnce: Fial Prr|. th( Phcnr,m|lnotoSy Spint.. wrrh a funher ot trtte Insencd b.tsccn thc .,)lcface and rhc .tnrroducl;on..which in somc copies rcrd S.rcnccdt rhe ExF{ricnccof Consciousncss, and in o|he6 ;ead 'scrclcc ot rhc l,hcnomcnok,Sy Spiril.. ot atso as | rcsutl ot.confusr()non lhc prn ot rhe puhlshcr crearedhy ltcgcl,s vaci atrons.As stll rs trvrnFk, srgnatrrs phcr sirhin hrs sysremIn rls lrttc, ltegct.\ 'Prcli.c afnr hrShtighrcd rhc l,h.hodlroh,K\ Inrnxtuctorywork, as bc;ng rcqujredifwe arc k, seeihrnSs ,n rhc wa\ thrr llcsct s tltly dcvebped phihsophicatscienccdemandrj

-----.!rrrr-

fH .

P H T I I O M E N OL OGY

IIl

COI,IT XT IH E P H E N OME N OIOGY III C OIITTJ (T

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

,""d:i;.lillj,,:I;;):il'li T;.1fi

r,:;fil: lr::ltil*iilll ,tr:I li,jil*Jli;l1ffir ,,*i**, .ha'cnFe,o

any

cvcryIhingthal is supposed b3 scicnlilic, reasn must be aw5[e to r.ffcction applied. To him who looks at the world lationally the looks rationallyback: the two exrstin a reciprocalrelationship adapted). Thscommenrs, maoe rn oLPWH: 29lRH: ll: translatron l. cou6c of his di$usion of the philosophyof history. may srand r |n cpigmph for llesel's philosphy as a wholc. in tellrng u! much lhe aspimlions ofthal philo$phy, and how hc holcd thoseasprrllaons would b achieved. -or|l Hegels aim. as this commentmakcscb,rr. rs ro hclp us s that i iF world is ralional.by getting us r,) ln)k .rt rr in thc iShr wayi for, HGB.Iholds.rhc world 6.ational. rnd rh. gorl ol hrmun cnquiry is to'bring lhis rationalityto consciousn.ss th{t rs. rr)breomo w re of . lhi! mlionalily. and hcnce achic!e a lully &lcquxt. eomprchension of | !rl rty. (cl P S :4 5. w heretl e gel speaks r hikr sophy ol as'opening up lhc lasl'locked naiure ol sub\lrncc. !n(l raisinS lhis lo selli, \ ; ' r ln hr r , J In ,n i rtl n n h ru rL (t ,{ t. , .r, $, \houl d . dut consciousncss. . by bringing conscn)usness ol-its chnosback to { nnl \( hl en rn orderb.scd on thouahrlandj rhc simplictryofthc Notion . ( f. dlso i) ili: i" il, l " i l ) i l : . r r ' r ' r' ' n ' | r ' L"' l' | h ,,Jn ,n u .,ch Jr r ?R r P rcfi cc.p 12. nnrurc s dt n, s ( . his ,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,;,,,,,1,,,...,i;;,,',"";,:,:,.:::,-.,::;,:i,:,";,,',""h.,t,,\,h,.u,h' i il r*hichd/ nr r , r r r 1. , / /and. . . istand prcsenlqithin ocrr.,//rcason lno$l!.d8{ musr inlcsligale F3p conceptually nor lhe shnpesand contin8cflcicsqhich a.e vi.iblc on the ,rurlhce. but narures clemnl harmoflv. conceived. lowcvcr. as the law ofessence,rDdren, wnhin it .) In claiminSthat lh. world is mtional in this respeci.rlcgcl mcans many things. but rnrinly he mcansthat it is such that wc can lind dccp intell$tual and in ?treti.^l satisfo<rion it: rh.n is nothin8 in rcality.lJ rr., rhat is .Frllic to reason.which rs truly incomprhcnsiblc, contadictory or

".:; lff ;l$l ::l;;I ., l;ffJlXil"?*T:Tif Hl,1ffi $ur\..r a(oL,n, uu, o,|,c_l
r;J;"-;1,:, ;ll.i:#.:*_',Ti:l:

j: ;ilffiil;':.,,xm 'lT#rlij il.,.ffi 11#1

.'(cu ftJ LIU(k ' , r n ! d ot wnn. ( ir v c n t he lx l

rl*;:*l[:'**.:f i.i1ri:n-i; r'na. pub,ah,r ,g:r::ilJfr ro,hc m ;m;;;;l".Hi,:Hli: H:l

scnfr terceprrheprcta(c|rhe nrghrbctoi

jii!|;,ff.x{":l;:', i;l trHiJ :J:ffi [*,#.r::F

compkhd mdnu*-nprby tS Ocrobcr tE06

rh^r rhe Phenonenologris hr lion nawb$ (which. as

HeSelhimslfacccpr.d). would noneihcldsclaim lhal Lv. sn, I

I h.as underlyingunity of purpo{and mcthod u/hichcan b an

to lighl oncc its overall approach is clsrificd. h is to b hopd

";*

lhis unily will b.corn cl.arer as we proceedlhroughthe work, wc gralp how Hcgel undrstood Prero,rcrdop's role asan thc
on toth system. and whathe inlcndedthat system a whole as

Hegel'5 system

:.iif:riilt 11;,;*:1,1 "*rj*itl ui

bcncr q20, rH' :l I liil:l: :Tl";,:?:lt"ilfi i::TI."y,

J" ;.:ii: ""rJ*h;l i::r ".-;*l;";: ffi lil l;;:T1.TJ;.T'.,'# -*,;;ilil ;::i;:

;it#H#Hi:'jl; i:rii'x'L'ilTs"' ii::Yi':

il illl'"'l iilr;i'"::".fi ""i; ;#:;f .ri'*' ;;"*1"i

resorh. il:'#ill.: J-,lH?,Iil,'[i,l:""J*,*needcd h,\ eno,'o ;;';;;il;'. Tff l,:1,H,l'fiJill: lr:m::'|J"':rvirc,;;

11

"l

lHC

P I I E N O M E N O T OGf

III CONIIXI

1\E

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN < OIITE X ' I

inerplicablc.and thcre is norhingin reality which makesil inherenity at odds w|lh our puryoscs and inleresls. the wortd irsetfis mtional As ;n this way. oncc we can s rhsr rhis is so. the world wi lhereby have shown irsclf to us in the right way. .nd wc will have achicvcd nbsolutcknowlcdSe, which rcprcsenrs highcstform ofsatisfacdon: lhc unlrlthrt rhinr is reached.lcscl callsour knowlcdsc.finire or.condil ljoncd . in so far as lhis rationrl insighrhas nor yer beenanained_ Nde. s llc8cl ,lso nri*e\ clcnr i'r lhir cdmmcnr.wherherwe rrrrrn rhis sratcot nhsolulckno$lcdgc docs nor iusr dcpcnd on rhc trorld lnd rhc Inrr thnt i s r.lkrnal: rr rlso dlp.trds on (r. on how wc ,,)l rt th. world Il qr rrc unrhlc i,, \rc( lh. sortd conectty.thcrelbrc. rt will not rppc.rr srtisirctr,ry t{' rcirson:rhnr is. the world witl :rppcnrk, contrrn clcnrcntsthal nrc incdmprehcnsihlc, conrradicrory. nnd nhcn. in r rr\ thrt nra! lcrd us inkr dc\parr. lk)wcler. HeSets onc. ot r$onciling nftic'jt r\ not rhr puruly eonr.narr\c or qurctisrrc rs ro lhc wo.ld no mnficr wh r djlliculrius wc scc In it: ftther. Hcgel armsto arvc us l way of resollin8 thoscditliculricsby {inding a new $ay ol krcking at rhings. |o show us lhc wortd,s il rntrinsrcr y is whenthcsedilllcultics rnj remo\cd (.i thrdrmon lee:l: 1.1 I ). Thus, llc8el bclievcsrhat rhc Srcalcslconrributionphitos|phy eln make is to help us ovcrcomcour dcspair.by p.oviding us wirh l'csh ways of thinking about rcl|lity, th.rcbr- bringrngus back to 1 r scns. lhar rhc world is ! ration{l place.onc in which u cln rruty t-cct.at hoole'r for. rs hc purs it in the I'hih'!.t,ht ol Rij<h/. .l is ar home in thc wodd whcn it knows ir, and clcn mo.c s0 $hen ir hascorrprehcnded t t lP R: l{ 2. p . 1 6 ).((f l s o E L r \l q 4 Z .p . 1 6l . Ihcarnr ol know lc(l8c rs k) drcn rhc objcctilc slrrld lhrt \rrnd\ opl,i\cd ro |lr of its slmng.ncss, nd- r\ lhc pfituscis. r()fi'rd our\cl\c\ lr h.nrL in it which nr $ns no Dr J rc h n nt()l n ' c c th c o b i e (rr!c$ o rl d hxcl l () rhc roti r)n l |o our Inn(nno'r sclll ) ln. c r to r.h i c l c rh i s g o d l . s l l .8 c l \r\\. rc nrn nj usrbr awrkc rn(l rcllret!)n rtp|cd: rhar is. rhilixoph! Nr\t takc il rclt!{r i! c s t lDecbr -x i c n trl y i n g n dg u rrd u r8 S rrn sr . a a rho\cl i ,nnsol (hoaghr th r ll'rd us r,) irdopr intclleclualor pnct r.! t ednecpl ot thc $ ortd (,n nn that prcvcnrsrt lppenrinSrarionalto us in lh. $rv I shoutd.when we arc ]ookinSdt it pft)plrlv. Philosophynrusrrh(r.li)rc \cr our kr.oncct lhoseoutklrks wh'ch crer(cthc puzzlcsrhlr nop us l;rnn $cin8 rcaKrn 12

as a rcsuh of sornc in $e world. by showinS how these outlooks arise threbyenablinglhpuzzles mn ofdistonion *hich i.n bc overcome, rational wav oncc b b. rEsolvd and thc world to look back to us in a we mav kcome rerin. lf philosophydoes rot fulfrl this rolc rhen \uch or rhat even if Jn"in..i er,r'..ir'u, tr'" *"rld rs nor tronal as never bc a 'home' tt is. it can neuer took tlal l'ay to u!. and so can oplionsas (lilrallv) tite ounave. Ilegel ssboth these t crcarurcs has ofdcspair: bul bolh *ill remainopiions untilphilosophy counsels which the world is madc a pr'pecriveliom *r'r* ii"*" tr'" *.*" wc hav slisfactory to rcason Only then. Hegel argues'will fullv anil thus have achieved tfom thc world o""r.o." *, ".,*ng"."nt whal confronrshim is an Thc iqnorantnun is nol frcc bccause somcrhingoursidchim and rhc offing' on which alicn-worl<j, for lhi' ht .lcn(nd\. wrlhout hr\ hr\tnB ma'lc 'n l'tcrgn $orld himrcitatul rh.refotr wi'h'ur bcrn8rr home In ir hv hrm\'lfr\ prcssure lor in somcftinShis own. Thc impulscofcuriositv thc ofphiltF lhe knowledgc.-from lowesl lclel up to lhe hiShcstrung i.sighl lrises onlv fron lhc struSSlcl() camcl rhrs $r'hicsl onc \ sirultrcnol-unliccdom .rndto nr'kc lhc world onc s osn In and rhouahl . i dcas ( LA: I . p 98)

rcsponWc hrvc seen.thcrcforc.lhrt llcScl trkcs rl thut sc arc inlclleclualxnd so''il cnlironmenlsthal thc siblc tbr creirlinS krnd ol !s lhe world lcad us to llnd thc workl Inlcllccluallvirnd \ocidlly alien k) us But srlcn rhis ho$ docs llesel nont *oura * iinlri' " "na *'n.eltrons conrcrboLrr'lllcscl claimsrhdl such irrlnl It"*" ^ri.nuring aritc hccrLrsc nre inelincd n) $inl tn a tncwc mislakcnconceplions we btl'clc lhal somclhtngis ?"/t'l hnrlc wav: sided or oppositional o' divinc' or inlinirc. onc ,t maf,v. lrcc '/ ntccssitated htrnan und so on' 1he diflicuhv is llegul communrtv. d/ nutonomous pad ol-a will frnd tt hard a.eue".rhal ;f*c llkc rt'lngs in rhis way. lhcn 'cason ir will thetr look ar rcal'tv in a wav that io"tnur" ."'s. or rr'ing'. ^ inreuelalionoflhes' rnomenls whcn in r-.,r'..n.pr"x ftaltherc rsao gcnuinc "1"r..r.sccilslfin thc world rea$n musrSrasp fsct to thal lo act dichoto y hcrc' Thus. to lake one ctamPtc' bv assuming l3

'f
I HE P H E N O M T N O LOCY IN CONIEX, IA ' P H E N OME N OTOC Y IN C ON l E X T

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 arbrnarl cnor(c\ J: Jul.'n.rD'u\ a(tioh. ds rsont) rhcnrharwe could b sid r,' h( (rrn8 qrrh!'irr yrhrnB{prc,tica y d(rLrrn,n,n8 ou bchavrour. r , ut r t $c t h( n tJ l c J u td n u m o ulic tl o n s ro h c,,t thrs ki nd, rr rs then h.ril ft, r(.( rr.cddn r\ bcrng lunr(utart) J{\rrrbte o. srgnrficaDt (cf I I \ { 155 t . PS t| l r 2 2 r A r th r\ p o rn l .q c may $cl t feetbautked F ' . , nu/ / r c \ ' .t(.C pth d rtrc n ,, to n F c r ,,s qh(r( ro tn rum to fi nd rh( s.ursl:rct|()n rcrn crrvcs: bur tbr ltcgcl. rr rs just hcrc lhal .reason nu\t rB asxrc and rcncc0onapptrcd. lhlt rs, s. Drusr ask whelher thcrc rs sonrcrhrnS Intr,nsrcnlypioblfmrne lbout our sbnrnS point. an.t whcltrcr rhh hrs.rcrrrd our \uhscqu.nr(trt.ticufric,. orr. assun)plkD lhrr ticcdom ri)lot\.s het ot coonrrinti "^mcfy, for ;I the t l' |ls r r ! r nin8 i rc b r rs s o mc l h i n g c c x n ,i D r fnrnti zc,. l w l hcn i i appcars that.on\rrritrt and liccdonr ean bc nrrdc coutaribtc rnd shoutdnor bc oplr)scd.llegcl rSucsrhdrour in rrI dichol,mryrnust rherefore be bn,rcn down if the puzzte is b bc rcn,tved, .lt.lrom which wc may lcam whar a mislakcit is ro rcS.rd ficcdom atul ncccssrry as murua y er c lus iv c ( t j l j g t5 8 Z . p . :2 { } ): o n ty rh e n ,Itc8ct uggcsrs. wi we cone bacl lo sceingthe world !s rar(nratonecrSain { ln his desirc ro rind somc stnsc of ,nre edult and *,(iar harmonyby overcom,nS di!rsions rnd drchot0m,es the rhnt secmedro m il( t hr ' r m p N \j h tc .l tc g c t s J , (t(.r,h r(!n ,i ndrn!ft, rhe \Ln* .ur dr ' hr r r r on s h a R dh ' mrn ) ,,t h F c o n rrm F,rJi e\ h,rh w rrhrnhrJ rn]nrcd'are crrcle (Nch as Sche ins xnd tt6ldcrlin) anil beyond. r.his J F l, r , r r r on. \ J . i e trJ r n rd n ) t.\rt,. J : rp IrJr(J rhJr rh( l nt,thh.n_ nr . r ' thJ ( l\ h. r t (no l d (rn J rn tl (\ h u r h t p u t n o r hnU .uh,t,rntr,rl thrr In t iir ( I n' ^. r ( J .u ns ,F rfe n J , t(J J rn F ,((frr r!,r. \. rLrh r,,nr(.h. r,, e anis l|e x r . r i x trs m ,)e rx lrc ti ,n nro b t,\d \ rr\orurrnr_ nr v humrnrsm ) ti c nr \ r m ' m lrs ' n a n d c ru d e h c d o n i s n r. rd rD ,t,\tdurtrsn .u ro s(rrat linStrrenhtknr Ihcrc s.|s thcretilrex tctl nccd on.r sidcs to tind a *lr rorsnrd. r(' .begilrg.itr. jn . nunnrr rhrr r.l nor tcad lo lhcse rtr npp) con*-qrcoccr Bul l;r c8ct. rs sc shr sec. it was cru.jal r hr r lhr s nc * d rrc d ()r s b o u tdn o t i n v o tl c l h c s rpl e,qr./n rz of \cr t reloml, rnd so on tn\rcrd. egct a.gues thar r hc t r t r , ( c f r ut $ { m tl l r. u n .tc rty ,n rh r s .i ] l h(\c rd(a hJJ hcen f , r c \ ( k ' n( LI rn \(\t| g a rro nru !r,s h ,.s l h(\ L,,ul J h( ratcn . ' ( qu rrd

i i I I I / : r I , i I '

'

wayi onlv oncelhis had bccn forward in a lesslim'red and onc-sided help us ofthe EnliShtenment rhieved, hc believed.could lhe itjcas rhan curting us off from rt. for f'nd $rrsfacrion in rhe world. mthcr anly thn could uc hnd a $ry of R{onc'hng thc demand' of reason otd rclrgron. fr(cJom 4,,/ socral ,rder. .cient'nc natualism ,,'J on Unlikc rhc rrrduonrlisrsand conseNariter iuman ralues, and 'o rhe crirrcal power of $ho quesrioned of the counrer-Fnhghrcnmcnr. cxpewho tumed to an and aeslhelic tlsson. and unlike the Romanlics, ol rnodcmrtv lleScl s posilionis lhcrcfon ricnceas a curc for the ius distinchvc in connnuinS k) give Philosophy rhc cxalted role ol' rsloring our sen\o of inlcllectual lnd sprritull wtll-bcin8 albeii a philosophylhal lhrnks in ! ncw. non_ilualislicwav. As He8cl puts 'l i r l he' D i tl erence.ssayol l 80 l: Whcnt hc m ighl ol unionvt r nshcs and from thc litc ofnrcn nnd thc lnrilhtscs bse their l;v;n8 conncction the nccd of philosophv !n$s' tndcpcndcncc. .c(iprciry .rnd Slrn (D l S : 9l ). lhrl qc nrust lcam how to break Il is brcaurc of his insistencc the opposrtrtn bct*.cD ce.i.rn lundnmcntalcoo.epls (such as down onc frcedomand necessiry. tnd mrny. and i) on). lhal Ilcgcl s thouShl as/rdl& tn?/ llcgclhrnNcllu\.s this teml quxc rurelv. b chara.leued ( ud his only prol,rscd d'\ctrsson ol shrt hc m.'ansb\ rt r\ rn hrptcr Vl of hts llnLr.lqx.lia /-.,4k', ,jntrtlcd Iog1. l:urlhcr l)clincd an(l t hr . D i vi ded. In l hi s shon chrP tc r ll. gcl dr sr r ngst shcs ( . st xs. \ 'n r h' s'dc.or is oi thouS hl $htch h. klcnt , t ic\ lr I r h. bslr xcl . dcvel opnrcnt (b) o. l hdlol undersl andrnS : l hc l ) i{leelr enl. ll[ l ol nelr l'! c r cr nnr i( c) or thc S pc.ul rrae- rhrr ol posili\ c r clnD- ll I \ 79. I lll) lh'hAt 1\ ila8c. ot underslxnrling. chrrrcrcnrcd !r rhlr licully ol lhought !s which rrcnlsits corrcepls rpplrerlly discrclcrnd (rn llegcl s lcnns) 'lirir. : tt thLrcforc \ricts k) li\c(l d.tcmnntrttrnsrnd thc disl!rclne\\ lion rrr,,rhcr .lcry sulh ltmrled hslrrct n lreals ofone dercnDinalion rnd bci nSol it \ own ( lil : {80. p ll3l lr anslr r| hl l l i nr r subshn.c rh.l $c $ill ahtrvs hnd rr lcmpl_ ||,,|nmo rlicd). Hclcl acktn'wlcdgcs Inl tl o thnrl of rhi ngsi n rhrs$ny. ns $e s. ct io or dcrt he *or ld 'nlo asll.cts.and up to d point thrs cah bnng great dirlinct arrdself idcntrcal mtctltclurl andpraclical benttirs:lhc nrslalclhc undcrstadtnSmakes. m.dc rgatnsl hrwcvcr, rs ro forgtt lhai lheseaspcclsare tibstracti(nrs thc hrelS(iund ol ! morc eomplc\ rnte.depcndencclhis mrslakeis 15

+
f NE PH E N O M E N O L O E Y IN CONIEXT lHE P H E N OME N OTOGY IN C ON TE X T

broughthome ro rhe understanding rhe second djalecticat in or srage ot thoughl.whi.h js thc inherent self-subtation ofrhesefinire dctermin!l i o nsdndlhc ir r an s l | i o n n to rh e i ro p p o s i te(E L : | 8I. p_I I5i rransl ai r' llon n()diliedl: .iis prlrpose to study rhings in their own being a.d is nrolenlcDtand lhus lo demonsrare finirudeofrhe parlialcategories lhe o l undc r s t r ndin g _ r{ 8 1 2 . p . I1 7 ). H c a c ta rg u es (ttl rhali t i s hererhat s.cprrcrsm linds naturat place.for when the understanding forceil is 'ls |o scc rhrt rrseonccprual divisionstc.d it into incomprchension. may ir eonrcld (loubt rhar wc can elcr arrilc at a sarisi:clorygraspof ho!\ l h ||r gs r c ( c l. M c (i i n n t9 9 .1 V.th c rg t9 9 t: t9 7 2t8). H ow evcr. x . he nr\r\N rhnl rhc rcsutr\oflhe drrtccticatsl!g. are nol ,nercty .negarive. In rhr\ sry ftrthcr.thcy tcrd dn ro thc lhird Nndtjlrt nagc ofr.zrrr. {hr.h aptrchcndsrh. unrtyot thc dcr$mrnrrionsin their opposition Urc!llirmrtion. which ;s enrbod'cd rherrdissolution ir and rhei. transir0n ( l: l I \ 81. p I l e r rru n s trri om o d i fi c d ). h u s .ati crw e hl ve been n l k'recd k) rclhink our conceplsin such r wiy Ns ro brcak down thc 'rbs lr nc " eir her o i o fl h e u n d e rs l a n d rn g _ :t8 02. p l t5). w c w i r (El rhcn arfive ar I ncw conccprual nandpornl.from which it can be secn th.l rhcscconceprs can be broughrtogelhcr.therebyovercomingthc sccplicalaporia ol-rhc diatccticatsragc.Accord'ng lo Hegel, withoul thts conceptuil transformatjon, sill be rmpossible us to see rhe rt for world withoul apparent incohcrencei onty oncewe ba!e identrltcdand surpasscd riaid conccpruat the dichoomjcs ot.rhc u|derstrndjng will wc be ablc to concciveofrcality in a way lhat is srristhcluy lo reirson. 'Ihus . as llc gel pu l s i t. [r]h ch a | te o fre a s o ni s th c struggtc break to ut rbe rilidity tu which lhc undersrdDdrng rcduccdcverything., has whilc thc oJ undeNlrnding is dogmxric. bccruse il 'netaphlsic half t r uth si n rh c rri $ ta ti 0 n .: th e i d c c ti sm .specul ati !c ol 'nhlnlr ins p ' r b$phy c r r ies o u t rh e tri n .i p l c o f to rrti r) rnd shou,sthrt i r c.n reach beyond the in.dequatc lbmrutrncs ot rbsrrrcl rhought. (l i l : gl2z . pp. 52 1 ). Hegc ls oult o o kh e rc n rs y l h c r.l b rc h c trk e ned rhosew ho to ckrm that when we lrc iiced sith aptarcnrty irrftcrrble inre ectual p.obtcnrs.$,e shoukj not try ro answcr thcm hcadon . by takjnS up one srdco. the other.bul shoutdratherncl) hrck en,l uppty oursctves 'rcflectivcly (as Heget puc it). and ask how il is the prohtem has nnsen In the lirsr place:once we see thnr rhc prubtcmhas its soufcc

overcome lhl]i oncin a set of one-sidedassumplions if !e cah d wc can escaDe idcdtess. then the problm will simplv dissolve slance a'd its equallv 6. 'oscillation' between one unsatisfaclory ques' opposite (Cl AW: 2. translationmodified The unsatisfactory seer'g lhal bv tions which philosophvfails to answer..}re answe'ed not be so posedin the 6rsl place') However'whereHegel ircy should who otheNise sharethts more ,"cent philosophers rtitiers from ;rherapeuric' -uny appioa"l wirh him (cll Wittgenstein1968 Austin 1962) lo champ'on rhe l. lhal he does not take this approachin order 'pre'philosophicaloutlook dDriority of'ordinary languge or our il of phr lo'oph}Jnd r r ' I br Fcr r r nF i rrrns rl e " na,r" rLr.i on{ r hr nt s'Rr r h( r ' f or H( Pel r r N r h( -re' ol ;. ...." " -' " " r. ' ." ." prron lb'ms lhe nalurnl as lhe oulkrok oflhe undeBtnnding otherway rounLl. of our thoughts.so lhal il is onlv wnh rhe intencnrion dlrting ;oint reieclion lhrt we can set our way lhroughthe offuaher philosophrcal thll this Senerateshff fion thinking lhal c Droblems scieniillc.political or religiousbeliel\ lrr ordinan pre-pt'it,"nptrrcal on r l l eS clelait Dsharlhcv m un bc r ef lccled . Oouraj " ' ti " r.i r " r.n. In r1.l ( r h( r I '( r \ {r \ lh r r f r \ e' lh: ln'' Jr( Ohi l o' onh,e.rlrf$( l\ lr r i'r r r 'r r 1' r h( 'r l pfty p" r' " ,uutF.' " ." 1 l ot' { ilr r r : I 'r ' ll( ! \rrl lh, l '''r h( r l r "dr r r r r liF r I J r 'r l :' fr ' rrri ,rL' ' * r' .ri r. '. I lcg'l l'lcs sonc ol ilr on unstabl c l hci f o$n. Thus.l hoLr gh ' scns' (in he phil(Nofh) r(J p\crdo_fR)hlcnrs lhrl thcv ol th ccnlrrl problerns (n-looting rl lhe sorld futhc' lhrn Inhercnt by oLrr$r! .re rlrlrcr than 'rcner.tcd in thc rorli irsell, i,l v' shoultlhc rcnrl\cd rcllcclively onl) be deall holdslht t tlhcv i ). vi ! l -udhefnqui rr. hc n(tr.l helcss 'Nn x ! sonl! pht k'n w i th by l umi rg r, fhi krsoph).ri 'l nor dnr r lionr of lh' kr d ol ophy anrl rrol n|trftl eo s.iusncss ls cxnNbl' rlt!' lu/7lcs th'l lo rlilllccrical rhrnking thal i\ i&luircd '\crcor]c 'notur!l consciousncsiits.ll gcncrlles hereas he is in linL Whrl man seek\ in thrs silualion.ensnared ludc on cvcry sidc. is lhe fcghn ol a higher' morc subnlnli'l' lhe {inrlc lnnh. in which lll opN$tions and contradiclionsin cln lind lheir linal re$lution. and frcedom rls full srlisiirclion truth' This is lhc regbn ofabsolule.nol linilc trulh The highesl lnd irulh as such. is the re$lulion ol-lhc hrShestoPposilion 17

I HE

P B E N A M E N OL OGY

N CONIEXT

IH E

P H E N A M' N OLOGY

IN C ON TE X T

se ldncerrc l!,!tc\h lhar of greal rmPunlncc In rhh 'e\pe(t 15ho$ r nd in'I \ t dualr whichhe cJlls p'nr ( ulJr .i cfi f' . -' .g.* ' ol " n' * .\rl . , * caeS ori es l he nol ron ' r 'conc( pl) ^f ot t hLhold'r it i'unl) ' ! rtcn rt'" opposittonbcr{eel rhe'e (dregoridsis oter'ome rhnr rhe cdn be rcsol\ed ro bc suncs(ded i" o* i :r"'chcm( -*.1rudl ssld- ncr u'e HLs( l lNuse\ on r heir an,l I t r mme uni fi ed ' arnnal r cldr r nn qe'n univenaland ber on rhc 'ndr I rl " s.* ' . -,| .' pe.' l l v d' rhrr rh u) ar eccnt r dl u our sav oi r hr nkr nt s' r I ruu;I. b(cN r he hol t he 2lo ( on{dcr d I aa* e rr' ,' ' e.y p" ^" ' i !( {( I PR 4258 f 'n I rn Fener aln r h( unr r ) dnd t nr ( r r r n( r r 1con' N r' I tr.a.r. ," r' on" t' r1 dnJIndrt Judlr r ) ) Ar r h( m f r r ph) 'i'r l levr l $r I tn" r,ni ' e^" t' r' r Lr l onJ r) I ooo* rf' " ,," ,' .' ' ar' r1 ur' rn( rJedllulhe r ndr vr duJlr ol t h( Pr Jr r nr 'r 'r n r h( 'n( hunddnJ n'r nr F : rh(.l ehdr.berqr(n I ! seni rxr( of ( i'cn( L r r t r h( f di rr' un rhc orh{ r' $e upno 'c r hi unr \ ( r 'alt r \ dnd so sencrdrcth' {lcbalc berwccnesseni hdividualrty ol existenls q(orp"n t r nt '( r r l nr oFar e\ r " I ndr \ r Jual I trl i ,sa" o.rn' .nfut' ' r' Jnd I n' r' e' . ,n.l \n F< .crrr( rl rc J( b3r ! her $u( n nt r dr ( dr f 'edli'r ' rrfn'*( r l'J Jn ! ( r \ r lr r ) r 'l r or m r . r h( I nJl t 1..a' * " * * ' * i ' ' r' ' "< ? i i Ouut' rrur n,.ru< . .rn(l -' FJr "1. r r ( JJhJr ( \ ( r $'r n "r r ( Jnr r 'r l 'l'r Thus. llegel sccs rhat the ftltc ol phjtosophy ;s to tead ordinary unilers|hlv 01(jod I |td istsandconceptur id.!listsi ud {' olposc lhe J w d ) fro m th ( n fp o \i trn n J trh i nkrnE rh( Lndui hcl*cent hcr st s ot i ol -nran.nd v) g. nc ( c t hc dcbalc bfi c i ndi vi dual ny slanding. in order ro overcomelhc kind of concepturtlensionsrh A r r\( Ll r' r(rn"l r ! r 'r l l( \ '' q( i iir r r r \ r r lt r r r nt r r r l d hunrn' r' make the wodd appearless rhan tully inrc igiblc to usi once rhis is $ l huuFhr rh rh( rrtl |\ 'lr 'r lr r ) "l r r r dr r r '{rI' n'l ' r ( nJt 'r ' x c hi. ! ed, we w i l l o v e rc o m e c i n re e c tu .t a nd pracl i crtdj l .ti cutti es Andr llhe m nl and th 0.;ebal -l rty,,l c bcl w ccr rrl i onal i sls r d cnt f ir icr \ ls lhrl hxvc ariscn becausc r \ Jr r 'r ( r 'r ' lr 'r n r h( we do not bok at thc sortd rrtionr y, r( {L Jr' rrr' !Lr' l Fl rri .,l l J' .r' \ t hic h l1oinr s o rl d w i l t l o o k h a c kx t u s rn r ratronrt com'nunrlhc mrnnc.. ;ltizci rs indiv u!1. tn(l $) stncrrrc thc dcbrrc b'twcen Nos. oh!iousl), shos.jngthat e.an,n crr cn!ht. us k) l.eet.rr libefulivnl $c drningurshlhc unilersll intlrcsl lron llre i.tiunis and and h(lne in lhe world bl. ticeirg ns tiom thr rltfcnr oppo\rr(nrhetwccn |ndi!idrul inler.sl, xnd nr Scrcrurcthc dtbNlc berwcenthc ego'sl good li(n .on.eprs lrkc liecdori rnd ncccssily. one xnd rnrny. linrl. rnd rnfinjre. dtc altruini wt dislrnguishth' uni!'Arl!t! ol thc ScnerNl thc debatc r nd n) on i\ an c n o rm o u a n d rmb i l ro u su rd e nrki ng. hi ch ri ms rt s w d|G pani.ulinly ol thc indilidurl rgent Nnd so Scnerale n( nh, nglL' s \lh rn th c d i s $ tu ri o n .t rl rh r l r.dj ri (l rl t .probl cms lFlwccn lhe utilitarionrnd lhc Kxnlirn: wc distinguishthe unrlersat'tv ol lhe dcbale t lr l, \ of hv r nd th . rp o .i a srh a trh e s c .p p o s i tbn\ cneral c. rs rhi s It of luw Iio r thc lieedom of lhe indiriduNl and so gcnernle S we distrnSu'sh and nod.rtrkirg which fonns rhe hrsis of ltcSct.s rtr('lr./.?.,r2 s),slenr, tllwccn lhe dcllndcr ofrhc slirr' rnd thc anarchrsti bc S r nnr nS t h rh c a ' x n .r In rh e l .)s n .l l e l c t scl sout ro show ho* w; of.i8hls rnd nrlunl l'w lionr lhe plrlicularily oflocal $c unilersllity thc lh. \rnous e egoies oflboughl are diatcctrcay Interretated. such !rdn(,ns ind cusloms, and so gcnerale lhe dcbate betwecn rn in the samc \hould be rulcd x sr! th$ rhc conccplual oppositrons .csponsibte our pc.ptexrlies ibr @rmopolilanwho thinks thal .ll sociclies (nn he .Lv,l!cd. oncc we rcthinl( rh.sc lirndrmenr!l rrv. and lhe comnunitariNnt!ho lhinks divcrgcnt cuhural hrslorrcs norions. Hegcl contrndrcnonln it validity and power are swept away fro,n lh. oppositionbclweenfrcedom and neccssiry. bctweensp;rit an(l naturc, bcrwccn knowtedgeand its object, betwecn law rn{l liom opposil;onlnd contradicrron sucn, wnare\cJ as 'mtulsc. forms rhcy may lake.Their validjty and puwcr ar opposrrron an(l .onrrad'crionis tsone. Absolutelruth provesthal neirherfreedonr by (sell. as subjeclivc,sundercd from necessjty. absoturely is r rrue thrng nor, by pa.iry of.easonjng. is trulhfutnessro b. rsclbcd lo ncccssiry isotaredand rakenby itseli The ordinarf on thc othcr hand. cannorexncale ilsetf f.onr lhrs oppositnrn rnd cjther .emajnsdespniringty contrddiclior in or clsc crsts it rsde rnd hetps itsclf in somc other way tsul philosophycnl.rs into the hcan of rhe setf-contradictory char rcteristics.knows thcnr rn rhcir esscnrial onc sidcdncss ibsolurc bur sclfdjssohing. and it sersthenr nor In the hrmony and uniry which is rrulh. Io graspthrs Concepl oftrulh is the task ol philosophy. (LA : l . pp.99 l 00l 19

1I ] '

P H E N O M E N OL OGf

II{ COXT EI( I

1Ii E

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN (ON i IX I

crhic!. pot icat rErisrous rnd and rhoushr T:ly"l:::.li:"T:r"cy. areal asso(,ared rheways which categon"iot wrrh in th. *i""oiur.

should b respctcd.t Hegcl thcEfore claims that cnrciat issu6 ol

ril:l'i{.r"1,y.,jy,.,* aore pfitosophrcd dinicuhre! wi

conccrv.d. rhar such rppaEnrry insupr.

bc gr!.mrcd unlcas rhescsrcgone.

,111,-{ ,ndr\idu"rirywirh unrlersar(y. one rhe aspccr lT-r:,1. on rheorher oepenorng rcfl EL: {t64. pp. 22Ue, SL: 60jr." Bec;usc hegerthouShr rhar$ese rhecategories canb besrrnrgmreJ are rhrr rnrfls-way.rn hrs/.,,B,..Heget worksrhrough orher sers ofcar.lonc, *'lc.and norhrnsness. quanriry and quar,ry. idenrni and 1:"J^1-:: p_an. and many.e,sence one and 4pearance. _olr.r-.1e1:c' thoh.and suosunceand snnbule, freedom necessiryr. lnd toshowrhatwrthrhese caregones cenarnrcsidual dichoromies rmrin.It is rhereforE onlv once amvearrhccaegoncs wc ofunrtenat.panrcutar. rndirrdual and rnar trutydBtecrrcat rhintrnS bcomes possibte us:theaimofphrtofor sophrcat reflectron rhercby is achrcved. reachcd careSoncs rhou[hrin rh( l.rn. rhe of ehrch ,, .n:r'."* heFLr tnhr\ $r[ cnahte ro .toot ar rh. wortd6rrh us tjy..rn thc ne\l r$,' h.\,tsoflh(.lr, n /,7rlr,/ Hefet m(^e.un ro rhourhar thr. (trirhh.r sortd m toot rarionay h.rt rnen lhc Jr u\. In \u(h ! $ay lhar rcason tind sarisfacrion it. tn thc phito\ot,h catr in 1,1 Ndtu,e,He,:cl consrdcrs naru.nt the wortdin rhjsrega.d, tryin8ro showrharwh;rc we nnti eonceptual diliculries in our underslanding narurc of obr examptc. lhe norion rn of.aclion d a die{ncc.)rhiscanbe rcsohed lhrouSi.amoredratccricat rpproach. ltcgctpursrt rn hE dr$u! A\ sronor hcat..lrlnetart hereis rhesame rharthmuShour as rhe*hotc of rheph'lsoph) ol n.rture, rs mcrctyto rcptace ir fie categones ol rne undcrsrandinB rhe rhouShr-rclarion\hrp\ hy of rhe sD{ulal,\c

T":1:lll::ej,h.,:1 ..cdirrd.in raRs or rhe tarturcoI.rhe undcrsrandrng, ro ovcrcomerhc opposnion Der$cenrhc\e csregofies. csn point ro a whole h sriesofilvision, In our v'cw ot rheqortd. brwe.nabsrracr d concrcre. dcat and reat. oft and many, necessrryand fredom, sbre and citizen, momt taw and sell--rnrcrcsr. gdrrat sr and panrcutarwr . rcason and tradjfion,God andm n. lr e g e tb c ti c !e drh a trh c d r!rs i o n c rqeen b unrters{ t and Indrvdual lie! behind aI lhese dichotomiesi bd ar rhe same rime, hc blievcd rhat *e do nol have ro ser rhesc.regories apan, bul cm s.c

rhc way. nshr rhul *r,*i.g"r

lotion, and to grasp and dcterminihc ph.nomcnonin accordance db $c fsncl (EN: ll. 9305. p. 88). Li,k3vtis.,in rhe Philosophf oI HslconsidcNthc humanworld ar rhc lcvch of mthropology, of nind, psycholoSy. cthics, politics, 3n, rcligion, philocophy,whcrc a8ain his aim is to dcmonstratc valuc of $c didcdical ftihod rcns on rhc cncgoricrl invcstigationsof ih . Hcgcl docs nol doubi th. far-rachirg sigrificancc of thal for all ths fflds ofinquiry,in so far asall involvcconassumptions .hat must b madc dialcctical if th &mrgin8 in our thinkin8 is to bc avoided:
metaphysicsis nothing bul the rang of univeftal thoughldclerminations. and is as ir wer rhe diamond-nerinto which we bring everlrhing in ordcr to mak ii inrelligible. Every has culturedconsciousness ils meraphFics. ils instincliveway powcr within us, and we shall ofthinking. This is the absolute only mastr il if we make il th objecl of our bowledge. Philosophy in gneral. as philosophy. has diferenl catcgories fmm thos of ordinary consciousness. All cultural chanSe r.duces itself ro o difierencc of categories.All rcvolutions, or whelherin the sciences world hisrory,occur merely bcaus spirit has changcd its catcgoriesin order to undenitandand l)nd lmsp ilself cxaminewhal belonSsto it. in ordcr to posscss in a truer, dcper,more inrimrtc and unilicd manner. p. {l: N: I . . N2462. 202)

The role of the Pfieromrology

$ry what llcgel $anrcd his philoseenin a sener.rl Wc haverhercfore nthical systcmlo achicve.and how he hopd ir would achieveir: by o$ling us lo think dialccticallyand so to resolveccrtain blindspots' h how wc take the world to bc. ir will allow thc world to look back h I lalional way. to manifestils ft)tronll strucllrc to us. Thc question Dw.riss: trhat rol is therc fot rhe Phe,onenlog, wlhin this enreF ti!.. and how doesthal role comc about? As we hrvealreadyseen, HeSe himself characterizcs PreroI lhe to lhc system, and now il can be rnade as an introduction rrrlo{l,

_______-

I HT

P H E N O M E N A L OGY

IN CONT EXT

J Il E

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN C ON IE X I

clcn.c. why suchan iniroductron needed. is and how it miSht proceed. Ilegel l{lcs ir rhal in order for his systemlo succeed showingho$ in we can lind rnt(,ndl saristaclionin the world. we musl enter into I pncess {)l eonccptual thcrapy(undertaken the t ( rc/qp../i4)t but in he recdgn'/cst"opreliminary difficullics here.The firsr is that we ma) lccl no nccd lbr thrs lherapy.because do nol see the problem lbr wc which lhis rhcrapyrs rhe solulron.or because LIonol sce lhal Don wc {lirlccti(xl lhinkrnSis lhc sourceol the problem.or because lhink wc lhc tr)blcnr is int.insicrlly itresoluble The seconddif]lcuhy is thNl $c . t Lr \ r nr y n o l k n o w h o * b a o rb o u t n r.k i ngthe kl nd ol di al ccri cal l r c ! 1s ion\ lhrr l l c S c lb e l rc v e N rcrc q u i rc d ) tal l ow through s k rhe kni s ili( nr s . l lhc t,t]k As rn intnJductron rhc slstem. lhe /'rrrorkrx)/.tf theretb.f t(J h!s tuo lirndrnrcntrltrsks, onc m)lilirtronal rnd lhc othcr pcd!8ogi( 'lhc motiuli()nxl trsk is to nukc us see{h} wc rc r.Vrir.,/ k) undcr rirkc lhc kind ol .cflcclivc cxaminalon of our eategories thal t!kc\ place lhe lr)An. llegel points oul rhrl thoughwe ,(. categoncs rl 'n lhc lime (such as being. causeand cft_ccl. fitrcc) $e do not usuall) rccognizcrhar the categorics rdopl in this \dy ha!. r vit.l Intlu, we encc on how w. vies and acr 1n the world, and thus wc do Dot s.. the impo.lanccof c.itic.lly refleclingon thctrt: elcryone possesses and uscs rhe wholl!'xbstr.cr .rtc8ory 01 b.trrj. Thc sun a in rlre sky: thcsegraperd/. npe. xnd $ on d,/ n?/r'rrrr. Or. nr ! hrlher sphereol cduealion. fft,cccd k) lh. *c r ehlr o no l c !u s crn d c fti c t. ti rc c rn d i r\ nl l ni l cnrl i on.el c.A l l ( r , , k ih v l e (i s c!n d i rl c rs.rc c n [!i n .d s nh n)el !f' hysi c\i kc thi \ l x nd go \c n i !(l h y rl . i l i s th e n e r hol dsr)gcrhcral l rhc e . ( d. lc f[r$ rl $ h ,!l r (rc 0 trc \ u " h in h .rrti on s L o ur xnd .ftl cr!ol l (l rl : l i ,n \ rr. \!rk !r.u oR l i nrrl eons.kmsncs\ llur lhrsn .r i' c ner l h n o n rc r(rrs v e rs o r s rl J l l Il i i \ sl ul l eonrtri scs h our L, i, is r rrn rc r(\1rfd rh co h te .rs rr rrc hcl i trc s th our i nds.w hi l c r he u, r re ^ i l th r.rd \ o l l h . n .t r.n i rn our ol si ghlrn(l rrc not c r ph. rl \ n ' !d c rh e!rh rc c t o l o u r rc l l cctro' r. (ILH P : :7 8) t { egelr hr nk s a tl h c b c s tw ry o fSc ri n S u s k ) trhve to the hA n. l nd rh lo lu.n iiom mei!'l! i.\,r( cltegories lr) librdrng them the nghllirl 22

islom . kc or ' honourofbei ngcontempl. tfcd lheir ownsakes( SL: 3'1) vivid to us exaclly how impodnnt n is to think dialecticllly. bv whcn il doesnot Thus. .howing what goeswrong for. consclousness by |s we shall see,ihe P/'et.,r(rdl.4tr operates l.acing the developva.ious ways of lhinking aboul the lhroLrgh mcnt of a consciousness where rhis world (includins nself dnd olher consciousnesses), inrractlbledifiiculties in making is consciousness ficcd by appNrcnlly lhat whll underrhe world a home . uDlil al lasi il comeslo recognize lies rhescdifljcultles is i1s liilurc lo lhink dialecticxlly:al lhis po'nl. lo it is ready1omakc thc trNnsilion the logn. wherc inslcndol mc.clv the bcing shosn why conceplualtherapymdtlcrs,we underSo lherapv pu. i l $el l by maki ng' l houghts cxnd slm pleour oblect ( hL: \ 1. p 6) in The Phenonetunogrthcrclitc ponruysconsciousness th.ce modes. *here !l llrn it 1sblilhcly obltrious kr rny potcnlill pnrblenrrnd so by is chalaclcrizcd a sclf conlident ccnainly : ir is thcn liced w'tb ! !l problem.bnt is unahlelo rcsol!e it givcn lhc coNrcptualresourccs disposaliil thcn succu'nbslo dcsp.ir. xnd reities lhc problem bv iB as trcaling il as unrcsolvnble. inhe.crrlin lhc world. Onlv whc all thrcenrnces arc crhruslcd Nill con\c(nbncsshe rcldv k) rellect these r it ns on theprni cuhr assunrpti (,lhatat . cdusing lh. dif iicully, nd onlv , havchccn sho*n r i' t u pr oblcnlur l.wr ll rhesc ssrnl pl i ons { w hcnal l bc rcady ro undcrS('lhc kind ol pnrrnundrnrlysrs of consciolsness ofl $c crrcgori cs houS hrthr t is f ( , noscr l$ilhr n llcgt l s sf ccu|r t 1\ c phi l osophy: Qurre gcncr!l U . rhc lir nr ilif f .lr sl bccr u\ r 1r is I t t n'lir f . t s u nol cogni l i rcl J- (l crslood lhe conr nur en $r ! in shich wc dceci !ee,l hcr ourscl\ esor olh. h t r boulunder dr r dingis bJ" rs{nni ng sotri .thi nsr t liniliNr . r n( l xe. cPlr ngit on lhr ( ncvcr gcls w nccounti i l h al l rl s P( r s r nd cons.such knowr nS rnywhcfc. rnd ir knows nol $hy. Sublect and oblccl. (bd. scnsibiliiy. and so o , . t uncnr ically N rrurc.tl ndcN hndrn g. trkcn lbr granlcd x\ limrli.r. cslablishcdrs vrld. and 'nade into fixed poinh tur naning and stopping Whrlc thescrcnrain unnrove.l,lhc knowing aerivit]. gocs back Nnd lbnh belwccn llcncc the lask thcm. lhus nrolng onl) on thelr surfirc!' nosadaysconsisls. !r liecing deredninrle0rughls fro rheir 23

_
I HI P H E I I O M E N O LOGY IN CONIF XT IA Z P B E N OME N OLOGY IN C ON TE X I

lixrry so rs io give acttlahy ro lhc unilcrsal. and impan to ir spintunl lifc. (P S : 18 201 llescl thus (hrractcri/$ his rpproach in thc Pr.zoudolosl A '[a] secflrcrs r thnr it dirc.ted .Sainst lhe wholc BnSe of phenomenal cons.krusncss l$hichl rendersrhe sp;n for rhc 6rsr rime compclcnr k, c\:r|nrnc*hrt rruth is , by forci.S consciousncss queslion'all lhc ro nl.rllc(l nxtLtrrldcn\. thoughts.and opinionr. . . idcas wirh which thc conserousncss scrs lhour thc exrminlt()n lof rruth] xftuiarl lhit dnd|s n' ll l i l l c d i rn dh a mp c rc (I, rh l n i r. i n facl . i ncapabl e !r ol (PS 50). c r r r r y r n8 w h rl rt $ rn l s l o L rn .l c n rk c out lk)$c!!.r. o in!ry eonsci(nrsncss rcsislrhis task ofspcc nlr! trlalilc phil()y)thy not mcrcly bcca sc n linds no need for il (rh( molr!!tkrurl pr,hlem): !l mry do so bNau\c {as llcBcl rccognizes) it linds it i(x) counrcFinruitile aDd Inlcllc.turlly dcmanding. as ns con(cptual ccnainriesare ovenum.d nnd I is rcq(ircd lo walk oD its hcad fihc pcd,Bo8icproblem): Thc mind, denied rhe use ol-irs fnnrilia|dcas. ltels the ground whcrc n dncc stdxl fim and ar homc lakcn.{ay liom beneath and. when tmnsponedinro thc regrcnot' il, purc thought.cannottellwhrc in thc world it rs (l-L: 13. p. 7). Hcgel lhcrcforeSivcsthc Prenor'.,r,1)E| a rolc hcretoo. helpingconsciousn.ss k) Sraduallyqurstion thosc conccprualccnaintics and thus tr) )!e k' a posilon whcre can sec whrl it nlSht rrenn to grle thcm ' up. lhus, as rr procceds 'r th.ough t|naPh!,tnDLrk'h)t<r. di,c\ conrc k) scl asidesorneol il\ 'linrilirr rdc s . so thil by rhe end rl rs fr.pfc(l tur lhc kind of c\flicir cftn,nrli,nr of lhon ideasihnr r \ r r hr c ! c d In l h c l ,)s n ' T h i s r\ l h c F d r gogi c funcl i on ol rhc l' h, n' r nLn, n ,,u t: h c l p so rd i n rry.o n \e n { ,$es l i cc up ro rh. l }cr rt rl[|I {tr Do lnr8cr take rhe rpparcntl) oh\r,rs drslinctrons lh. of 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 h r\ r { d .v ro re l l l ro n ] r$ o to rnrsor' \rc* : rhc poi nrot' v r c $ or ' of t l, n a ne o n s c i o u s n c s sh i c h i \ u n (i crgoi ng s experi ence w, l hi ol nl(rving lion .oniidenl certainly k) dLsp ir. kr rcncwcdcc.lrinly ds rl rcvrscsrls nositionand sccsrhings i r dillirenr wayt and thc pdinl ol liLw o ! U c g e l(a n d u s ) a s ,rr.n r^ ot rhi s consci ousncss. 24

and who can thcrclorc who aheadyGcupy the spccuhtivestandpoint. rtsclfcanno( whal is going wronS lir rc. in a way thal consciousness h.nd why. Thus. Hegel wrll olien slep back from me.ely de$rabing itscll. lo commeni on wha! is zdrl' Itc crpnenceofconsciousness will come k) loin8 on. or to anticipatehow cvcnlully cons.iousness poinr in ih naranve $is Ftolve a panicular problem. wherc at that nsll:lhere-. lo b not apparcnt con!.iousncssnstlf. Fbr consciousness it responds somc failed to bt .rie Phenonenoh&t is ! ! id ,('ttdl'l a. as and so cqually positionwith anotherposithn that is cqually onc-sided. time s? (as phenomcnological doomdto collapse.Bul al thc $mc ot&rver") leam a sreal deal lrom sccins whal rs goins wrong. and rs wh.n (af the end ol the Phrnnmtnnh't<rlconscrousncss ready t) it too will bt in a Positionlo leam lhcse ihen rdopt our srandpoint, (iilcn rhrs co.ceplion <\l thc I'h.noht.nob8l. il is thc.clbre ini.oductionto ltu: po3siblc see why thc /'rd4d,r1n,/,,(r' Iorms to 'n in thc fr.rt /d/d.ra and ossrialql *orks, and why alv) ty$cm scl out nuteriaf from n is repatedn1r/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. ablc to put thosedillicuhics more e\plertly In lhc liShl ol rbc crt.Soncrl ol di scussi on thel -d8n. and v) dr unosc lhcnr hllly iD i er y lhir rr s yel possiblein the Pr(r,rr.?r,/,,{r rtsclll Dot As well !s linking lhr /'r,frr,?r)/,/*r t{r thc rcsl ol hrs syslcm. panrculadylhe /-ds! . in ! nllunl $rJr, I hol)cthll anolheradlrn' |nd on l.r8col ihis cmphasjs lic drrlcclrc*rll bc(omc clcar$ 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 rhc rc\l ii orticr lo do so Onc drlli_ both at ftc culty is lhlr rhe Prdort,r)/,,l.t drs.usscsconscousness 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 sccnthis see ! problemaiic for relircnccs md llnhcr discussion, PiPpin I 991l I 55 6). But, on my accountthcrc is nothingpxrlicularlytroubling hcrc: ( cl: for. as l l csel hi msel fsrrcsses llN: l, $2462,p. 202) . lusl ns wc crn scc thal trrdi!idualscrrrploytrleSorics in hos thcy think aboutlhc

25

1H'

P H E N O M E N O L OGf

IN COXIEXT

r H E PH EN OM TH OL OGY III C ON TEXT

wo.ld, so rm do cultures and $orld-views in which indaviduals Dariicl palc. in thc sns that lh.s. can also be chsBcteri2ed as involving (ar cnain categorial assumprions when Hegcl says,for erampl,lhat the (ireeks lacked the modm concept of 'rhc pemon'). Frorn the perspective my reading.thcrfor.. ir is hardly surprisingrhat the of discussion oDratesrt both the individual and rhe cultural hisroricat level. This in my view explainswhy in ChaprrVI. HcSct fcts ablc lo m*c his nororious move from 'shaps merelyofcon$cioulness'lo 'shap(s ofa world (PS: :65) Anorhe. difnculty rhar has facedmany commentatorsis thar thcy have soughr for unily by seeing lhe 1r.,,),r.,r,/o$, as lduscd on onc problemor issue:for exampte. rhar llcgel is herc ofitring ! rhcory ol knowld8e, dsigncdro ovcrcome lhe fimiliar problemsof sccpticism.relativismrnd subjectivismibur lhcn they havc strugSled inlcg.atemore obviouslyerhicalor social lo parlr ofthc text irto this r$din8 (ct Pippin 1989: I54{1. wherehc lnes to grve an epistcmoloSrcal accounrof rhe masrcrslavesclaon. which in my lieu is more natumlly readas addressinS issucsin social philosophy;and Rockmore 1997, which stans by rrcaringcpisremo, logical issuesas fundamenlal. bur rhen fails ro locarc such issuesin largc pans of rhe rert). Onc a8ain, however.on my approachrhis problem dos not arise: for. on this approach. whar unities the Ph?nonenolopt is rhc consistcncy its diaSnostic of ,k,rr,.1. which is thcn applied to a numbcr of ./t/irczr problem areas.O'rce rhis is acccprcd.there is no nccd lo look for ore kcy issuc.or ro trear rhe I'h.non."oh4!, as a conrriburionro on. a.ea of phrlosophy(as a contrthuoonro ep,stemok)8y erhics.or philo$phy of rctigion. or dr q h!rc\'.rr: rnrhcr, unny ofrhc work comestirm ils alrcm loshow rhc lhrr t! srmrlardi8i.ulty common ro a ranScof concenrs.shrch all 's shos thc srm. hrndol drstl)nr(nIn our rhinking(cll NaScl l9tt6. who htes thc pr|blcnr ol r.con.tling sublccrn. dnd objcerivtjstandpoinrs lo undcrlic iirndamenrnl issucsin clhrcs.polirical phibsophy. episre, nxtoSy. ind metaphys ). 'l hus. in answerlo llrym\ question.how ics one work cnn Includca discussr)nol senreperceptionand also.rhc madncss Drdcror'sDusicrln . . [and] rhe r:naticism of Marat and of Robspiene (tlaym lli57r 241). wc can reply (rarher profaicalty. perhaps) thal all re\crl diolcclroallimihrions ar dilTcrenr tevtsand lo difTrent degrees 26

Fimlly. t hopc $at my spproach|r|.y sh.d sonlc light on ll rotorious probl.m of cxplaining Hcg.l'! transitions in fie Pknonenoloa/, fiom onc form of conscioNnds !o thc ncrl some it.dings requir. th!. tmnsilions to b extrcm.ly ngorous. For
qrmpfc, thos. readinSs rhar lle9i th. Phenonenologr' ls a transccn'&rirl argumnt !!c commiticd to thc viw thet .3ch ncw fofm of tblciousicss is inlroduccd as a ncccssarycondidon for th. poesibility ofdrc prcvious fonn ofconsciousn.ss. (Ct Taylor | 972. Normsn | 9E| : l2l, Neuhouser 1986, Pippin 19E9, Stcwan 2m0. I mysclf have bllowed Taylor in arguin8 lhal Hegcl's tratmml of'Pcrccption' claims aboul lhe conl.nt of Fttains som inter.sting tmnsccndental (scc Slem 2000: 164 75); but I am doublful that exprienc 6i. procdure can be made to frt rlrc Phenonenologt as a whole ) On '.rEcptual oihcr radings.Hegcl is seen ss aiming to eslablishhis posnion as coherenr by showing .rrl othcr possible world'views biqu.ly and b involve eme sod of incohrenc. thar this requireshim to b arla8riw in movinS lhrough th$ *orld-views. so lhat every lransrlbo must involve the smallcst possible altemtion froth one pcrspective 5 lh nxl. (Ct Forstcr l99lt: 186, [T]he "nccssity"of a lransition B A ot iom a shaD consciousness to a shapeof consciousness jusl aon3istsin the conplex lacl that while shapr A provcs lo be implicilly self-contradicbry.shrpe B prescNesshapc At const'tut've hul aonceptions/concepts in a way which modilics thcm $ as 1oelimand hute lhe slf-contmdiciion, morcoverd(]sso whil. dcpaningless than hom thc meaningsof A s consliluliveconcePoonslconccpls a.y of othcr known shapewhich F-rforms lhar lunctrcn. ) Thc advantaBe F.dings of this son rs thnl thcy mke seriouslylhe lhinS! Hegel says in someofhis progmmmatr rcmarks.fo. cxlmplc lhal the 8oal as to wcll as rhe senll progrcssx'n tiom one fonn ofconsciousness lh (PS:5l) . The diincully.howeverist hat it . ncrt i s' neccssari lti xcd y lo b h6rd for thesereadinSs show ftar the rigour thty demandis aciuofthe Pr.'d'.d/.,R) l.rs Forsrer. dly to be found in the dcvclopmenl hc commentsthat the lexl 6r e)(ample.implicitly concedcs.when tright need to b 'reconsrucled in orde. to fil the melhod he proPoss ftr ir: see Forrer l99lt: l{i7 Cf. al$ K. R. weslphal l99lib: 94 5). hccd with lhis diflicully. olher connenlstors haveSonelo thc oppoaic ertrsnc. and deniedthat thereis any real mcthodal all underlying

27

I HE

P I ] E N O M E N O L OCY

IN CONT T XT

IH E

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN C ON IE X T

(Ct: Kauthann develop. the order in which the lbrms ofconsciousncss 1965: l7l. And rhc Phenonenolog is.enrinly unrillentshdlili.h: nol a monumenl 1o the undisciplined.arbilrary, full of digressions. and preciand lo ca.efulness auslerily ol the intellccturl conscience wtrh book lbat invitescomparison sion bur a wild. bold,unprecedented some grcrt litcnry mlslerpieces. Readingsof this kind have the ) ideal thal adv.ntrgc of nol rrying to hold Hegel to a rnelhodological ol hc fuilcd k, nrecli blrl on the other hand lhcy make a nonsense llcScl s own elnrns li)r lhc syslcmalicnalureoi his work. and rgnorc the kind ol \rruclurc lhrl ,d, hc ftrund in it Ndw, on nry rpp()!ch wr can lake the trrnsitions seriously. bul .1rcnol connnillcd 1()lhese being more riSorousthan a reahslic intc.prcrarionof thc acturl te\t allows On lhis approach.there is progression and intcr(onnectlon the tbms of ol indecd i necessary thc unrerl conscbusness(PS: 50). in thc scnscthal ns irndamenlNl lo limirntions lbrce consciousncss face cenain dillicultics, and k) will hindle thesedimcukies in r p{.lieular wa} ( onsciousncss theremovcmcnlrslaning lionr lbre lind irself caughl up in a characleristic one posirion.il comcsro seethat lhal posilion lerds to problemsthar will Consciousness lhereloreb. a.e un.esolvlblc liom thal staDdpoint. plungcd into desparr.as it now linds no s tislhclion in lhe wo.ld. rnd truslrution. llot'ever. HeSel claims thrt bul only pLrrzlement ofdi sstti stucti on. l c ons c ious nec a n n ore n u i nc o n l e n w i l h l h i s sens. ss t dislurbsits and rs lhoughrlroublcsils thoughllessness. ils own Lrnrcsl n inc nir ' ( P S :5 l ): i r m u s rrh e re l b re ro v eto . i rcshsl !ndpoi nll.n order o k ) RLo! . r it \ s c n s e l -h e i n g a l h o n rci n th c {orl d l l $i l l l herel brc u r do|l r f . * F N p c c ri \c h r. q u c s l i o n i n g n e ol l hc rssumptrons ol r hc p( ) \ , r r n il i o n r s h rrh i l b e g rn l l o $ e rcr. rs ! D tJcl y untc.l ' n,1..{ \o i n, onc' ( nr lunl. , t r ( ln rrr!.rn s fc c u l rti \c ).o n s e i o u $ c ss. s i( ie((lt r r n( lr r l c c tr.rl H n n c r. d n ) n n i \ ts rl xnorhcr si l i on \hrch n rn P ( / , , 1d! \ . ol t h rs r{ s (l e d n c \\) n o mtrc $ o rkN hl .r i l thenpl unge\ ,\ so tn l ol inlo d. s |x ir on .c r8 rro .()n l ) l h c n ro q u .s l ro nhc rs$rmpl i ons l " l al pos ir ion r n rn c o n ,p l e r. .n n d . rD d s o o n I hus.l i ,r e\ampl e. i cr In in q ( rr,rJ (q u .rr(. .(i ,,J.n$. (,r' r,' hnJ r l! \ r , \ J1 L r ,, i ) x ' ' no\r' bul $h P c r eeplion. i c h n o k D g .r th i n k so l -o b l l c t\u s mcrerndi vi durl s, but r nneadlhir k s o l tl c n r .s b u n d l e so l p ro p eny' uni vcrsl l sr thi s m s k esx dilli.u h l r) (rp l rrc l h c u n i ry o l l h c o bi ccl!s rn i ndi v ual . 2A

t I
I

i
!

but in theseuniversahas instantiated a substratumi lhis so it regards to the Propeares. rnaksit dimcult to see hotr lhe substmtumrelales ofa ro it moves1oa conceptionofobjccls as lhe appearance holistic this sts up a iroblematic tbrccsi bui .truciure of interconnected dualism between a world of scnsible phcnomenaand the lupeF rejccls so rnsiblcbeyo.d of theorelicalunderstanding; consciousness wodd as somelbtngrt can master this beyond and insteadsccs the lhroughaction;and so on. Or. to take someexamplcsfrom latcr in the Phenoncn.log]: Hegcl n.guesthat Problemswilh Greek elhical litb (nceks and to lcad consciousnesto quesnonthe perspectilc of the and frccdom.bul lhcseconcepts ne\t notionsol rndividualily introducc in sre thcmsclles dcvcloped one_sidedly. ! way thal leadsto frcsh in vinous {lys through the chapters on difficulties highlighled 'Reason and Spirit Likcwise, he argues th.i while modcm conhas becomedissalisliedwilh a cendin kind of dogmatic sciousness rcligiousbelicf. x molcs bcyondthit in a l;mitcd \fay. thcrcbv rntro' ducing lhe kind of Enlightenmcnl st.ndpoini thal is merclv I{egel wanls materillislic and ulilillrian Thus. in all thcsctr3nsitions. obscrlers.to scc thllt the movesconsciousphenonrenological us. as t le lr lim gi arc makes i nevi l abl e v enils dir lcclical ilNlionsl kcwr se. ncss k) sce th.l lhcse limitalionsnlean lhrl rl crnnot prcpedy arc supposed ol the cscape di fl l cul l i es -onc slr ndf oinrwhcn it m ) \ cs k) r not hcr . il docs so ur r nrc.ely onc sidcd nrxnncr (hlv rt rhc .nd oi becausc rhe Phthonwtulorr. when thc nrturll .onseiou{ncss!!c har. bccn lar obscni nsar l asl fccl srhi sdisulr nicr t r nr r lscll:will r l be r cldv lo drll hoe lcd il lo lhis rmPlsse. on lhe crtc8orral rssunrf(rons reliccl r hc rhc.cbyl i nal l y undersrl nding n. . d li) r lh. kind of philosophical srl i errnri D rl i on requi rcdi n or dcf l( ) xchi. \ c ibsnulc kno\ t ing' 'lhus. irt thc cnd ot lhc /'r.,r,'.rrr)!f. cNn cons.knrsne\s scethar lrr liom lh. worlJ nsclf being ffalional or altcn. *h.r secmslo hapPcn it i( against . is r eallv sown doing' ofrl oul s;de .l o bc an acl i vi l ydi. ccled cx! (P S :2l ): rl thatpoi i t i s rcr dy lo beSn lhe kind of calegor ial m inalion lhat *c llnd in lhc /..)An. and lhe prep!rutory rolc ol lhe P r,n,," r,,' /' ,A r rs dr Jn (rrd

29

1A E P H E N OME N OLOGY lHE P H E N O M E N O L O Gf IN CON IEXI

IN C OI' ITIX T

The Prela(e and the Introduction

will (iiven that llcgcl thinksthat lhe ordinarv consciousncss b rcad'(to lale or anil able k, lncc up kr the ordcal of dialccticalthinking . . ihe srrcruouscllon oflhe Notion'(PSi l5D onlv aner n has bccn rl rs nol so ofthe P'd'o"""l{J' e,(pe.icncc lhrough rhc ehaslening such ihinking rurpnsing thlr hc holdsrhal any anemptto lell us what would bc wd|cd cffon: rnr;hcs bclbrc wc httlc had lhat experience wc would r cvirdbly nrisundcrs[ndwhal was rcquircd.and bc unablc k' Sraspshrr is demrnd.d ofus The Prefrcclnd lhc Introduclon kr Jre thc.ctirc nolorious for lirlng 1o rssrst 'r' thc Prda,tr.,t,Xr lo rcadcrsb' t.lling rhcln .tnllhrnS In dd!anc' $oul lhe conclusrons prop'flv graspcd!r lh' hc relched, !\ rhoscconclus(lnswillonlv be cn.l ol thc $ort. and or tht bcginning: thc real issucis not c)(hrusted !l by stnritrS rs an um. bul bv car.'-rngtl out. nor is lhc rcsull lhc dclual lhrough whtch il with lhc Proccss *:hole. bul rrlhcr thc rcNll rcScrhcr hlve compl rncd' crnu lbout (PS: 2) Thus.as manv comntntarors lo llcScl $clns lo sel out ile|bcrslcly to makc the prchmrnarics lh' one has bticn lhrculh lhc I'henonhltuloer hard lo undcrsl nd unlil sork as ! trhole. so lhut lhcy arc more suitablyreld t thc cnd rrlher thln at lhc outset:thrs sltm! plrlicularlv truc of thc Prcfacc $hich only camc |o b( wrirlcn afler lhc *o'k wat complctc so lhnt rl st^s nrorc as r cdh to thc ler(t (or pcrhapsclen 1oIlcgcl s ennre systcm) lhrn !s r prcamblc.lAs HeScl rcmarkedrllher rupcrerliouslv Th' usurl rortll roid In fhrlosoph) is to rc frclic$ Jnd bok rc\''ws' r I n ot uier ( )8c r a Dl l P n )\i mrl c i d c r o l l h rn 8 s (A \l :' l ) Thi s i s ! shorl u k . ul hlj s c c nr \dc tc rn rn c d ' d e n t_ \.)

goal wher it can lay asldc the title rr^? 5 the tofm of Science to the tno$ r ng t har *n"t 1'"'" '6r m v't ll * *"/ i * " .* " r: '' talcn un qirh pol'mr' rs Muchofthe Prerac' rhererorc I l":ittil, -a

hate tailcdro sho rHseltlievst r". ifri". ha\ehcldthats'ri'' thev "g"'*i r'. *" *t t. do erther becrusc -".'p"raric\ 6i"i.'*i" rca$n In fa\our oi fnirh' b) be attarncd ahan'lonrng 8 ro" *" *,t rhc trnd of world-\iew'n whichrrue tt'.i r'"* Jil""* ';htcn tound " \llrifacltoncanbe btcllectual arlrckon a wnh tlod ro thc fiBl groul he launchcs scarhrnts rmmcLlrlta$uruness must*cI rhat thost who argiue conscrousntss rr rhoulhrrlroserhcr' 'r N ro reelar homc til" i'"."'"" tsuch rs r- H r ob' "-*,^"'" c'ttcs ot nh'rosoPhv ;;;-;;;r,j, i'" (<drinri(\ rhroulh iiroi r*ru,, br"r. i, Ior undcr rninsft'rmer b! mrte amcnd\ comm'rrt mu\rnu$ 1"....''" ',i"."^"' "hr(hthun tPs 5r' rrcset 'cdmrlr 's ;;il;i,;;;i:"',,'" '!n'isht '"h(r rn(rLl) m)srrcrsm err-phrlu{ofhriJl t,,n r. tc d lii'n,' '*'.,. 'clcmal religion and kr!e' Thc bcnuliful'.lhe 'hol) the rhcdcsir' to bilcr northe Norron' t" i^u ''lusc o{ ncecssir) lhc thingnscll in "..ltr'" -,i,1'"'l *)l tr'" i"r whll '"rA "rnrch "".o",v, of cnthuri!:m thcs' rrc sullosLdto hc iut ,r," i"r-*t subslirncc c\tcndslh' $'rlrh ol sunlins and contrnuallrup whcnrhcvgi\t rhenrscl\'\ ro rlE unconrroll'd iuctr ninds. I nivinclsub"rin'crn ginclhnr'bv drx$iu8 i",.*"t t,n" "t *rt.."*'"i'*-e* untlcrstundrns and {rrcnd'rrns ,"* In (iod ro \rhomllc rncs $rsdon' '"ii i".*," *. n"'-"U *"t "1 hringl() hidh in rtrd ,f""p, ,|(l f,.,." *ft" tft"l. rrrircl rctcrvc bur is n.rhrng (fi,ixms rtr.n. lherr ips ! ol ol suchrrranonrrrsm the llegcl dech.cslh'rl thonklirlly pcrrcd to timc anda pcriol of$snsrrron is ! hinh tr'"t ft . n",r"i. rppclrs "^ ""a thar*h!n rttrsr ,r's, ur. tl('werer.hc alsosratcs i".* rs ". ro reason 11$ed bv o ccna'n comnrrtmenr ii" t"""". ,r'r' F """*-"a3: rh'|'n'$ wu) or rh'nr'nF no morel "" i"i"ir..*'i '.-,'""" nc$-hom(hrld rr rs 6iLnrralro bcdrrhF rhJnN a or ".-i'"i"1.*t"t l'r rhctnsrrrmcIn rr' rmmRrracv rr.'-"i:""." 'Len( -- -1".i idmnrct( ""tr'"t"cn'$n'rr u $orrd.rsp'nr''' nor :il.:;,.';'

lh. \onLthcl.\'. rhotrgh Pr.li.! dd.s nor !r\t muth 'sa)" conctmrnS llr liom trlnsprrcnl /'rrr,,,1,r'l"tr . !nd ts lh. conlcnrot rhe 'fnrnrl) rl rs n i l l h tg h l v rc l c \ml l o l l cS cl s nr!' n thcme' . r nd lnlly c \ nI c n . 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 " i lind t hNts r t r s td c l ro n lrh c l ru c s h a p e n w h rchl nrl h cxtstsc n onl y cbser s l n c n r o l s u (h l ru l h l i r h c l f b ri n! phi l osophv bc lhe s c r c nlrl i e 30

------"""
I H' P H E N O M E N O L OGY IN CONT EXT

a
-l A E P H E N OME N OLOGf IN C ON TE X I

io ils bcsinning\' (PS: 7). The res'rhof suchimmarunry.Hegt s,r\\. will be thar ir is clarmcdrhal mrionatinsiShris srid ro be .rhe es|cnl possessaon a lcw individuals. whereas in facl (as rhe pr.,,, of u.z.r)g' is Inrcndcdlo show) [rlhe inlc jgibl form ot Scienccis the way open and cqually accessible everyonc.(pS: 7). Moreovcr. to In lhc eldy stagcsofirsdevelopmcnr ftispmgmmme ha5takcnI shap. ihat hls nradert an casyra.gerfor irs c.irics. as ir hassoughlro salisl\ rcrsd| wrlh r 'mo ({hromatic ibnnatism' in which phitosophyr.rcs k, Fin down rhc hcwildcrinSvaricly of phenomen!;n a tbw simptf schcnra. and hcncccndsup dcclaringthar .att is onc . HeSetstates thrr we aru nght to he di\satistjedwirh rhis ourcomc.and lo be succcsstul phrk,$phy must pn\ide us wilh n dccp$ fom ofrarronal insighrlhrn rh's: -li pit rhi\ srnSlcinsrghr.thnt in rhe Absotutcclcryrhin8 is rhe snmc, aSarnsrrhc lirll bodv ol articutatedco8nhbn. which d lclsr sccksand denundssuch fulfillmcnl. is ro palm oti its Absoturers rhe nr8ht which. !s ihc srying gocs.att cows are btack this js rogni 'n ||on nailely reduc.dto lacuiry (PS: 9). Itowelcr. rhhouShhe acccpl\ lhal some ol lhe contcmF)rnrycnlcs of phitosophyhllc a fr)inr rn allackinSthe philosoph;cal scienc.sin their curcnr slirtc,hc noncthclcss rnsisrsthlt this is becausein rhis slale th.y arc nor p.opcrt! dclcloped. aDdrhat iirnher philosophicat progress $i sho$ rhdr$rch altu.ks are prcmdturc: Scicnc. in jts clrly stagcs. whcn it has arrrincd nerrhcrro complrrcncss oldcrail Dor pcrfccrionof tbrnr. is vutorrublc k ) c nt r c r s mB u l i r $ o u k l b e a s u n j u s tfo r s u chcnrrci sm o nntc rl l th. lcry h.an ol scicnce.as rl is unrcn bte n, r.tirse ro honour lh. dc n' r ndli) . ir s Ir.e .s c i c rc es l Iu n h $ d c te to p nrcnr.(pS : 8). 'Ihir !.(lkD ol lhc PR'litec. rnd r I.l$ orc of th!, srmc krfj. t l' s l' ) . ll) . I r t (l .rrl \ d .r!n .tl r,, rt.n rl t r er(t(rn, rhe t-trt rh.,r ll( ! { l \ n. \ r r rL n rr\ r.r k , h r rt,8 tr{ (l $ L rtr sfh( rnu.r (tcnrrrr t ht lo$ph! r d tl s rs \o e rrrc dth rti N ,th ) o r n rtl r.. R rthe.. shrt( llc gc l r ( k nos l e d S c rS .h e l l n g s In rto n rD c c ! pronccrur grt,i nS !s .onrcnrporrrr" plll\(|Ph! I rcncsc(l Inl(ttceluxtopllrnrsmand rcspcel l( t r r c n\ on.hc ! l n , n l x rn l t $ rs h c sk i $ x n h s rc. .h rhatsuchopl l nrsnr eannot lnd rh tirllilncor r rh. sor\ ol Schelting nnd h,s hlk ! $c r s . lilr rl rh o u l h S c h c l l trUl l .s l o rl o d rrari onal sm,hi s conectlrdn rs l(r) li,nnul ic lnd cnrpry lo nrdkc rhc wo.ld prop.rty comprchcnrbb r() us. lt rca$n is k) tind saristlctrdn. cgclargucs.ir 32

to whaleler is morc than sucha word. venlhe transition a mcre ,ld)rrirt,_orrcl lhal haslo belakcn back. proposition. contains a or is ! mcdirlion. But ir is jusl lhis that is rcjcctedwith horro.. whcn mor is as ifabsolutc cognirion wcrc simply sunendered than in simply sayanglhal it is nothing madc of mcdiation absolure. and is complelclyabsentfrom lhc Absolute ol But this abhonenccin fdct stems lionr iSnorancc thc Rcason of nrcdialion.and ofobsolute cognition itsclf. nature whcn renccrrcniscxcludedfrom thc is. $ercli{c, misunderstood rnd ts nol gmspcdaJ r posnivenNmcnl of$e Absolulc T.uc, ( PSr ll l2) ll.8el diagnosrsschclling s misrukchere rs bascdon a desirc lbr il brm ofif,lellcclual suiisfaclionlhal is hlisslully unrsare oflhc prob_ m(xjcllcd on lhe ltli'ol lans facedbv ordrnaryfinile und.rstandin8. otu of unlrouGod and drlr nc cogn'rion I q hc.cI th.t lile rs Indeed blcd cqulity ond unily \ith tlsclt: lbr which othcmcsslnd alicn tron. r s ofal | nd l he overconri nB i enalion.r c nol ser knr nr llcr s ( PS l( l) : bul lhrt lhis rs a mishkc. lor lhe d;vinL inlcllccl musl hc rblc H.gcl argues sntrsli.tknr rs ol to wo.t( thrcu8h thcseproblcmsrl {tljh 'nlcll.clurl n( cdrli.rrxrn l{t jusi k) *( trrs'prd ror thik'{opht r,J\u.cccd rs . l E osonproperl yo,rns$crrtsrrr r t r t r r I st cr r t t e\ liegcl. hr nr s r vcm usl dit nol e froml hc l dcnl i l yphrl o$ 'phtol SehcllrF k' lhc pr oper lv ! lcc' r r r hr swr y. licgcl scr / cd svst cm i ol ti cal oul l ook hrso$n sncc uhlr ! c lhc torchofpi(trcssrtc rhntnu lionr hrs lircnd rnd lbnner collcrSuc. N ndhcgan. nl i hcxrcci l b. l $o lhxl \ n\ n. \ cr ll) h. xr ' In rhrsse.t!,n ol rh. P rcli. c. llcgel. onr $ out $, t h vt nt ol ht s mosl noktr(,LrslydurL styins". nrmely lhll clcrylhing turns on grosFinS and exnrcssingthc liue, nol only s ,!il'r/0n... but cqu lly !sS rr/trr' (l ' S : l l )). dnd rhar 'I I c lr uc is t hc wholc {PS: ll) As llcscl hrmsclfpinls our IPS: qr. rl is onlv drotr8h lhc elpositknr of thcsc claims. or clcn thc sysremit$ll_ lh{t he txn f()pcrly Jusrrl-v bul lhc l)ct lhat lhcy come rn lhc couNe Endcr them tully inlclltgiblci r of hi s ski mi sh w i l h S chLl l i n F per haps.s llcgcl him scllxlways {or sehcllinS s lcss irhle li'llowcrs) rirkcsibem $tnrcwhtrl in!'isled.with

3,t

-r
I 11' P H E N O M E N O L OCf III CONIEXI IA ' P H E N OM' N OLO6Y

4sier to interpr(:|.tbr. as we have seen,ir is clearrhat what rroubted Hcgcl ahout SchcllinSs rppmach \ras ils tcndencyrowardsmonisnr. thal is, to rhe !icw rhar'all is one (PS: 9). tn claimjng,rherfor. thNr 'the Truc is nor only substadce. also subjccr.Hegetmay b rakcn bur !s rcjcctang this monisrac position.on rhe groundsthar jr cottapss rhe subJccft)bject disrincrion.whereas(in Hgl s view) rh subjccrcan be holh distinguishcdfrom the world dr./ find iisclf in ir: .Thrs Subrtnnc. rs. ,rs SubJ(r, pure rint,/" ,?8/rn,n., md is for rhis len r(r\ t hc hr r ' r,rr.,rN n c !mp t(: i r rs rh c d oubtrng !' frh $hrch tcr\ ul opposition.rnd rhcll againlhe neSalion ofthis indjfttrenl diversityand of ils mlrthcsrs llhe immcdiale simplicityl. Chty this setf-rdrr,),tra snmcncss. rhir rcflecln)nin olhcmcsswirhin irsetf nor an dfraindl or or txnrlt.'., Lrnity!s sueh is lhc True (PS: l0). In dectarinSrhar 'Thc truc is thr wholc (PS: II). lteSet rhusassiar$ himsel wirh holism .s agarn$ monismi lbr whrle he rejccls akrmrsmor ndical dualism.he is h ppy lo aceep|idenriry-jn-diflcrence whereas h;s , {in view) ihc Schcllif,8ian takcsrealny to b. fundamentj y setf,idcntjcll and lacking in differenliation. ltcget calls :hrir lhe subjccr rhar cmbodies this relaiionofidcntily-in-ditlrence the wortd, by tindrng ro ilselfin its 'othca. so thdrwhile ir is nor cut oll from rhc wortd (radical dualism,,n is nol indisrinfuishablc tiom rr crrhcr(monism):.Thc spiF itual akrnc is rhc a.tualt ir is essence. thal whrch hnshdng in i^et/. or rhat which r.,lutc.\itvll kr n\l anl is .ld(miauta.;t ;s o pr 'r 's h.i,tx nd h.u'e.hr.\.lt and in thrs dcrcnnrnarencss. in rrs or s elf c r r c r nalit yu h i d e s (h rn i ts c l l : In o th c r w ords.n i s i n !i .l I , w nr,// (l,S 1.1). is ! nrafierot nnnc dispxrc as t,r whclhcr cgcl {ll N' \ r lt ht h is \o .trrc s c h c l l ' n 8$ rth mo n rs fih crc.xnd to cl unr rhal S . h. ll, r F s do. r n o . o l trrtc tt.c trn t rtk l r . l a l sl h ct rnl o i nen rrtu s r nr t I c r ly hv { rb n re rB r s rb i c e rIn l l rs u b s l i l cc{ t,S : l ,): seeInrsi c S l9el 5i 6 lr r\ r1\o tr.qu.nrll rrtued rhrr e8et himsetf rills k) \ hos ho$ r hi\ t l i f,rn n r o t c n rrr\-rn i !ti tr(o c. av(,rds l hcr i nco_ ci hc r c r c .or r r s e l c rd i n ! !p \ n rn ri s r,(n srh cl l o si ri on i s cri ri ci i /i ng: t hc c l J r r r c s lq) e. R u s s c l 1 1 ,5 6 l I l l llc8cl thcr gGt on lo con\dcr !l sonjc tcngthwhy his diatecrr, cal oLrtknk crnnot bc grnsl'cdby eonscrousncss immrdiarely,rnd so why sc crnnol tRrcccdr,' rt d;cclly hkc r shr thm I pistol,. rn lhc $ay rhrr rhe S.hclhngrin \ysrcm .bcgin\ slrlr8hr awlr wirh ubv,tutc 34

lnowledge. and matcs shon work of other slandpoinlsby declaring tbi il tales no noticc oflhem {PS: 16). Hcgel herc makesclcar *har consciousb di3tinctiveabourfie fteraputicnaturof his approach: }!s h3s lo s{:e that its own way of undentandinglhc world has of lil.{. bforei( can grusp the signilicance Hegcl s way of l@kin8 a things: But the lilt of Spirit rs nor rh lif thar shrinls lrcm ddath but rather th life thal .||d keps itself untouchedby devastation, adures it and maintainsnsclfin it. lt wins irs trurh only whcn. jn uncr his di.membement. ir linds itsell'(PS: 19) llegel thcrcforecontrasls Tproach to rhrr adoprcd by history and marhcnralics.where thc and delendcdwithoul ooicomeol thcst inquines can be underslood ping thmugh lny such lathur of the ncgativc lPS: lo)r hc argucs cnquiry, lhsl this rs lhc wron8 model lo usefor his ibm ol therapculic *hre here truth thcreforeincludesthe neSaliv. also. whlt could bc cllled fic lt'lse. if rr could b. rcsrrdcd ns somcthins from which onc hc night abstracl (PS: 27). As ! conscqurncc, rciccrsthe mlthemaliobscrvrngin his defenccl c.l methodas inapproprirtelar philosophy. 'lfrhis commcnr\ounds boastlulor r$olunonary and I anr lar from doplrng sucha tonc rr shouldbe notc thal currcntopini(nritsclfhas drady comc ro !icw the scicntilic .c8inrc hcqxcllhcd by nrnthematou-lulhrrttd $rth rts crtlinrrktrr\. dr\r bs as qld,tc |.ts of thcorcms,its prcoli. trincinlcs. dcduttn|r\. and eonelusnnrs by from l hcnr' (P S :2l l ). (A s l l nrf ls 19r ) 7 L n l5l. n . r l r cnr ar ks. ,curcnt oprnron llctcl prohxblt nrcrn\ Krnr rn(l Jr.obr.ltr{l8rn8 by rhe) h&l . \ f k cd lhc spr no/ iniczn' hi s comnrcnr S I-:ri l 6 thLrt !t phi l (^othr.rl n r clhod ( ) n lhc olhcr hr Dd.hc wam s ) A corl rn?) as a lhal in nj|eong thr 'r|c(lant^ .nd poDlB\il! ol sdcncc se shouklnol bc lemptcdl,)wardsth. rnti-rrtr)nrhslre non{rcrhod ot prc\cntlnicnr ol and inspirNlidr.or by lh. lrbrlrxriDess ptuph.lle ulleruntc.both ol ponlpo$ly- bul screnlrlict.dcdnrc which .lc\prsc nor otrly scrcntrlie ofal l krnds (P S ::9t. tlegcl lhcrelbrc claiins lhut h's pruiect puts him b.twccn two .rtrcmes:on lhe onf haltd thc inadequrcyofconnnohensc (PS:.1.1) inhng (PS: l5). bur on rhe orhcr hand a wirh rts habrtof pielure-th purely csotcric and nrystical philosophylhat clnnot hc rniculatcd (whar hc cdlls the uncommonun'lersrlily ol 0 ro.rson who$eialcnls hrve ben rurncd by indolcnccand rhc concen ol-genrus {PS: :l.l))i 35

-t HF P H E N O M E N A L A GY

IN CONT EXT

lHE

P H E N OME N OLOGY

r,uhr,I{egel says,hrs rs a trulh ripenedlo ils properlymaluredfomr ol Reason' so as to be capable beinSthe p.openy of all sell--conscious (PS: 4:l). He thereibrecriticizesa philosophythal rs non-speculative withoul putting in rh.t il mcrely sets out 1o ovenum common-sense anything in ils placc: sucha philosophymislakenly'imaginesthal by eslablishins void il is alwaysaheadofany insishl rich in content' rhc (PS: 16). (h lhc other hand,h also stresses philosophlhal tsenuine to ieal lhoughr srll 0lways represenla challentse non-philosophical lb illusrrrlc this. hc focuscs on ftr wry in which the ordinary suhiccr prcdi.dtc li,m is tcsted by philosophicalpropositionslikc '(n)d is being or 'lhc rctull is the universal. where the p.cdicateis nol bcing alhbured to the subiect in lhe nomll w.y: The phlk! sinceil n a proposition, lcadsonc 1()believelhat sophicalproposilion. relalion obtlins. ds well as lhe usualatli' the usual sublecr predicale tude towards knowinS. But thc philosophicalconlenl desrroysthis attitudeand lhis opinion (PS: 39). Thtls, though he does nol doubl that thc pubUc is ripe ro receive lrhe rrulh] (PS: 44). Heacl lhc 'n Prcface wams the reader not lo be mrsled into acccpljng I nonil Ilegcljan \'rew of whal thal lruth is, but also nol 1ocxptct grasprng lo be easy: True lhouShtsand scientific insighl lre only lo be won ihrough ihe labour oflhe Notion (PSr4l)

ofthe kind ofphilosophicalpositionoccupiedby the pos!Kanoans,rn c lhe Introduction HeSeltrieslodealwilh a more lundamntal hnlltnge, suchirationalisrn as slemmingfrom nolhingmore than a one lhat ses (PS: 46) concemingrhe methodofphilosoph'cal 'naturalassumption' is that oncelhis'natural assumption' made.then inquiry. Hegelaccepts setsoutto showlhat it is in tbllows: he thereforc lcepticalirrationalism il as fact not tural'at all. and lhal instead shouldbe treated an unwar_ Hegel sets out the problemaucassumptionat lhc slan of the Inlroductionrnamely, that before we set out to find reasonin the world. we musr fi.n stp back and examinc whether our intellects where the tbar is lhal havethe c.pacity for this son of underslandina. projectwith embarkingon a hopeless oiheNisc we may lind ourselves In no prospeclol-success. a passrgelhlt Hegel cites elsewhcrc(FK: 68 9). John l-ocke t-atnouslynjcommendedthis procedurc.which examine rcquireslhat we 'trke a Suncy ol-our own Uhdcrctandings. our own Powers,and see ro whal Things thcy h.cl adapted (Locke equallywell 1975:47)i and llrhoush HegelcitesLocke hcrc, he coLrld from Dcscides: Now. ro prevcnr have quorcdlhe ibllowing passage our bcing in a slaleofpernrancnl uncerllinly aboul the powcrsol lhc mi nd. and l o prevenl our mcnkl labour s being m isguided. r nd we haphazard. oughl once in our lllc cnrclirll) lo Inlurre $ to whar soa ol knowledgchunrrn rea$n i\ c.p.blc ol Nrlrinin8.belare tle sel know l edgc t hingsin pr niculr r '( l) cscr r lcs1985: ol aboutacqui .i ng t hc 30).N ow . tl cgcl scesK anr\ cr ni. r l p( ) iccl xs shr r ingcssent ially phrlosophy fi.sl by ro lame outlook,accoftlrng whi.h *c nNsl begrnin ( cl. capacilr es f K: 69. EL: i nl esti gal i ng scopeof our int cllcct ual l he gl 0Z. p. l ,r ard FL: i 4l z. p. 66) . r nd nllhough Lockcm r y nol hale bcen r sceprc or idcrlisl. llegel hokls rlrat Kant in thc cnd qas both. snd rn a way that wis incvrlablegrlen 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 oLrrcognilive c.paciliesrtrr./ 6.rBc., us and .erllyi it then comeslo seemthat lhc world as it is in itself is iuccessible from our perspectivc.an elil that we lind wc clnnol remedy no matter how hard wc reflecl on lhe natttreofthis instrumenr'or 'medium (PS: 46 7). thc Kantlan nr.! seck 10 consoleus here by 11

ha i Lik c lhc P r elice ,l h e l ro (l u c l ro n sa c l e a r l .nri .dI i nl cnl i on.n setIn to n' sllN hotr n!'w rpprcrch is nccdedrltcr the litlsestansin rrnSour Inal plik \ of lv pr rr' 1 ('l l .g fl . l n Jl rk crh . t\c tr(c . rhcInl roducl i on es phi s h ll. g fl t.l ' c sl r)h c th c .o n s c q u c n e o s l i l l urc: unl ess l os cl f hr n ot h! ( x n n k c g o o do n rl st(n n rs c r()l i rd rq !t' i n rhcw orl d.tl tcnl bc w . N li) r c c \ol r nt r - fh rl o n )fh y rl l rn u rn p h h tr,rl d rng rcturn1osccpl rcrl how l o bcl i ttl c cry cl r r r r lr onx lr r nr. l l l h rse o rre i rs h l e htrn d $ s h nds r () r r ur h.r n ( ' r dc rro l u m b !e l , In k ' i l $ l l rn d g k )!l ol er rts o$n undrrwhr c h[n o w s h o s to d i s !)l !c e \c ry l houghl andal w aysfi nd s r undi. g, rhe sam. b.ir.n Iigo insl.rd ol !nl conrcnl (PS: 52). However. thrs wherc.s in rh. PrcldccIlc8el s polcmrcrs rxthernarrow ln seeurg irrutionrlirD !s rrisin8 out ol rhc immaNril), rnd empty tormalism' 36

1X '

P H E N O M E N O L OGf

II{ ( OXIC

Xi

1H '

P Il E N OM' N OLOGY

Ifl

(OIITE X T

adopting a more relativisricconceptionof truth. and claim thal this providsus wilh an adqual.goalofinquiryi bul llgel is airily disrnissive ofsuch inrelleciualbad faith. claiming that we graduslly come ro sethar this kind of talk which gosbackand fonh only leadsto a hazvdislinctionbetwccn absolute an lrulh and someolherkind oflrulh. and fial words likc absoluic","cognilion'. elc. prsuppos ncaning a which has yet to b asceriaind(PS: 48). Now. in orderto rcbul this apparntly incvitabl. slide into sceptrcal jnalionaljsm. Hegcl s aim hre is ro suggcstthat thr is in facl nolhing lhal ohligcs us to adoptthc'natural assumplionthat we musl beSin by '6rst of all lcomingl to an undersranding about cognition' (wh!r could bc cdllrd rhc crnical cpisrem;cmerhod). Of,e argumenr lbr it mighl be rhal ir is properly prsuppositionless. it d@s nol as assumeanylhangaboul our capaciiy lo invcstiaalcrhe world: but. Hegel claims. ihe adoplron oflhis lpproach dGs nol in fact mrke lhc critical epislemicnelhod presuptnsitionlcss. it srill assumes as somelhing. nMely lhrt wc havc lhc abilily to succssfully 'slep back'and investigatc our cognitivcLapacitics. as Hegelpuls the poinl in lhc so. Zopr. if ir is clnimed th the limitations of our inlellcl mun bc assessed beforewe can bgin inquirina inlo thc truc bcinSofthings , lhen presumably blbrewe can begin itutuirinSinto thc limitationsof our inrelleclswe musl asscss our capacnyfor such rnquiry: and thus ou. canacityto achicvc,r!r musl bc rssessed. so on ad inlin(um. and for'the examination kno{lcdgr cun only be canied out by an acl ol of k nowld8 e .' th u s ,l hlem o i l h c c ri l i c rle p i sl emitheori sttonvcs' i i c ligr t e our c og n i l i v e d p x c i ti .s i l h o u trl s , u si ngl hemand so ' to scck c w 1,)knd$ belbre wc crn kn,,s is nonscnsicrland dhsurd. as lbsurd ,s rhc wisc rcsolulkn ol Seholr\reus. nol l() lcnlure inlo thc wllcr ur r r l hc hr d l c rn t.d ro * v ' r)r' (l l l :\l { 1 .0 l .{). l :tccd* nh thi s d' l l i .ulll. dcla{d.rs ol thc nilrrul xssL'n)ptnrn may ,nsieadclaim lhal lhcrr p(Ecdurc ts *lrdntcd. bccrxrc othcrutscwc cannolb surethai our co8nltrlc licultlcs rrc ut k, lh. t,fi ol rdrling at knowledSc:in lhc / , , r n. llc g c l \u 8 8 e \ts rt th tr s n s K rn l s vr.w : W c ouaht.eys th *rlh lhc instrumcnl.bcfore we undedakr Kont. to bccomc.requuinr!\l the work lt)r shrch rt rsk) tr. cmnk)vcd:for rtthc innrumentb rnsuflicient. all our rrouhlc wtll b.: spcnr In vrrn (rbd.). Hegel s argumenl againslthrs !ic$ in thc I'r.r,n.rdl./(f rs (r0ighlfoNard: why should

I
I

\r. need any assumnceof 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 $an going in for any son ofprcliminary investi8ltion ofour faculiies.'science . . . g.ts on with rhe work itslf. . . and mislruststhis very mistrust (PS: 47). Now, h is imponant to rcmembr thrl Hcgel s tarSt her is a vicw ofthe crilical cpistemicmelhodthai seesit as a 'nslural alsumption', one thal claims lhal this i.quiry inlo th naturofour cognilive cspacitiesis an obvious and comnonsensicalslaning point of any philosophicalendcalour. either because a conviction of rcsponsible thst this way can we suard againstgrasping chuds of error instcad of the hcavenof trulh' (PS: 46), or becauseol a 'fear' of taking &yrhinS for Branted(PS: 47). lt is h,rrdcrto see how llcgel s argumcnrs hcrc would tell agarnstolher wrys ol notivating lhc crilical cpistemicmelhod.panicularly lhosc buih tround lhc clllim that there are i! zlxi,|? cvidencelhat our cognnivecapacnies hmrled.b$ed on or thc apparenl failure ofour inquinesIn cenain arcas(theololry netalimitations. physrcs. forexample).CivenlhrsevadenccofourcoSnrrive to it miSht then be sn as sensrbl scc what rt rs aboul our cognnrle which producslhose limrtrtrons,so thnl *c do nol lry lo cspacities Tbus. rhcm in a way thar would prolc liutlc\s or mrslcadrng. ovrstep n would scem.the cnlical epislemicmctho(l eoukl ht mot'laled nol lhlt by an cprslemic ole.scrupulousness Sctsthrnls ,n rhc wronSordc. our capacitiesbeli'rc li h s soughl k) cxcrcisc thcm: by qucslionrng mthcr. it could be nrolivnledby a dcsirc lu mrkc ! r.$onablc inlen(ln rory ol our abilitics flced wilh real c!idcncc o! rl8ir limilcdness. therclbrc.lhis $tr| ol crilical lhconsl is nol lems ol Hescl s anrbgy. like somconc$ho wants io lclrn ki swrnr qrthoLrlgeltrng wel. but instcadlikc someonewho ha\in8 nelrly droNncd. h r Sol oul ol lhe lo walcr (o roflecton how far his s$innn'n8 ubrlilicscan be exPected hcrc do nol really deal may seemlhal Ilegel s argumcnts rakehrm.) lt mclhod(llthouSh it could wirh rhrsway oftakin8 lhe crilrcaleprstcmic said he tacklcs it elsewhere. cxamplc rn hrs ll|lcl on Kant s for bc to claim fiat rhc problemsof metaphysrcllthrnting show rca-son be limned: ct EL: S$45 52. pp. 72 ti6l. r rhis stage.howevcr.it is nol clar how much ofa worry lhis shouldbe ro the Hegelian.lbr hercHegcl is liEusins on how a 'naluEl

39

lAE

P HE N O M E N O L O G Y

IN CON' EXT

lHI

P H E N OME N OLOGY

IN C ON TX T

inquiry dr r!., can lead to sceptical assumption about philosophical irationalism. a.d lhc clairnthat proper mcthodologyrcquneslhat we methodihe ts nor concemedal shouldrrarl wilh lhe crilical ePistcmic that oncew 8el on with the busithis poinl to rulc out lhe possibiUty nessof lrying lo unde6landthe world, we may lind that we encounrer that tle.e ec certain inrractabledifficulties which make it apparent (and panicular cognitile limitrtions we must acccpt.// ihis happens rs sc hiile alreldy secn.lbr Hegelit is a vcry bis ii'). thenProcecdins Thus. whjle may be sensible. as lhc cniical cpislemiclheoristsuSSesls lhe rhis point mxy undermrne in.ce of his polemiche.e as a critique ol Kanl .nd perhapsolhers(if il can be shown thal they adoptedthe crirical cpislemic melhod lbr the reasons.iust 8ivcn. and not tbr the rcasonsllegel c.iticizct. this strll does not underminehis central phitosophical poinl. thlt lherers liftle .easonto adoplthe crilical thco_ .isr's approach as a nalural assumplion al the outset. zrirr lo philosophicrl inguiryi and il is only if it is a naluml assumplion thar il is valuablcro the sceptics case.as only then would it scemto show that doubtsaboul our capacityfor knowledgeariseas begin ro seek such knowledge.so ihai it is somehowself-defeatinS 1o scek lo know reality. \\hd is significant.thereibre,is that Hcgcl the stalusof the critical epislcmic melhod as a natural undermrnes (suchas Kanl) could ha',e assumplion. cven ifsome of its Proponents for mo.c substanli!e..easons adopling il had other. philosophically thirl il would be d mistaketo lake the Nonclheless, HegelarSues to l h i lur c of t he c r il i c a ll h c o .i n ' s ' n a tu .a a s s u mp l i on show tbat w e crn iusl be sure thal ou. lies ol the world is thc conecl one. or lh.l we $c cri prlc..d with $hilevcr presupposrtx)ns like. The diflicuhy ot rs rtrrr drllcrcnl conccplrons thc *orld mry thke diilcrcnt inquirers i r\ r nld. \ o t hx l u n l c s \ s t.rn s h o w $ h y o n e conccpti ons l o be rhat thal concept'onhas r pfulctrcd to thc othea. w. could not cl in! irSht r() bc rcglnlcd rs lnrc. Ik,scler. it wonld bc wrong lo erpecl conccdedclarl w'lhoul my ffgunrent (as lhcsc olhcr cdn..ptk)ns 11, l l h is woul( l hc dog n rti c ):rn d rl w o u l d b c w .o n l l to attempt o ovcr by rssuming lhings aboutthe wo.ld thal come sucholhcr conccpu,)ns (rs we they do ndl Ncccnt lhis would bc qucslion-begging): musl thereare that lhesc othcr conceplrons ibre altcnrpl kr show 'nrdcquate,, . /l ? t / , ! x / . , , , r . a n d rrc l h u s s ./fu n d e n n i n i n Sso l hat i n l he end 'i

in and when we arrive al a concepiionthl|t is nol inadequate lhis way, ns w will havereacheda conceptionthat h$ establishd lcsitimacy way. This is what is in a non-dogmaticand non-question-begging known as Hegel's nelhod ot innurent citique: to.stablish that his conceptionis rhc one that is bst able to make us fl at home in the cannot world', Hegelfirst setsoul io showthallhsolher conceptions overcomethe problemsand puzzlesthat |rise lbr lhem, so tbai lbey that is required. cannotclaim ro give us the kind ofrational satisfaction position. theP/tcroThus.ai a prelininary 1oIlegel's syslematic how each non-dialectical nenohg has th task of bringing out viewpoint involvessome son ofselt-conlradictioniil is thusa way of (PS: 49), as rl comes1(' seerhal despair' for ordinary consciousness insiShtinto this palh is the conscious its conccplions inadequate: are rcal'ty phenomenal knowlcdgc.lo. which the supreme the untrurhof lhe unrcalizcdNotion . . . The seriesofconfigis whnl is in lrulh only urations which consciousncss soes rhrough alonS this .oad is. in hselfto rhe detailedhislory oflhe e/!(d/r' ofconsciousncss reality. each of Scicnce (PS: 50). Hegel claims lhat because the slandpoint inadequalcslage of consciousnesssuffcrs lhis liolence at its own ro hands'(PS: 5l ). he can peFuadeconsciousness acceprhis posioon way, by showing thtrt in a non-dogrnalic and non qucstion-begging nroles bwdrds it oi ns own accord.as il scckstu make consciousness goodon rls own intcmal problems.We thffcli)rc do nol ncedl,) rssume anythingaboutthe world al the oulsct.or to usc such lssumplronsto rather. Iclrnrsc()u$csspro! es its own crrle c.iticizeconsciousness: rjon fiom within itsell_by which its rdcqurly cnn be iudged. so lhrl with itscll' a lhc in!cnigntron beconres comprn$,n ol- consciousress (P S : 53). Thus.H egcl l l nmusl y dcchr cs. sr nccwhr r coDsciousness examinesrs rts own scll Nll lhll rs lelt li)r us 1o do is sinply lo look ol w on (P S r5,r).conscbusness i ll lnr d r t selfin r hc posir ion sccing thal how ir look things lo bc rs somehos incohcrent,and so will be forced lo rclisc its outlook accordingly.until ullimatel) a conceplbn is relchcd where il ir able 1o scc how to ftce ilself lioin lhcsc prob' lcms, at ehich point knowlcd8cno lonser needsro 80 bclond itsell: lo whre knosledgefinds rtscll whcre Nolion conesponds objectand *ill obj ecrto N oti on (P S :5l ) l l oweler , while consciousness m ole forward immanenlly in lhis $!), without our hnving 1(,nrotilare or

-lAE P H E N O M E N O L A GY

to irnpel i1 i-.omlhc outsidc,whlt wjll not be apparenl is hos exactly ils ncu wly oflooking at thin8sis relalcdlo ils previous conception.and hor this new conceptionhas com about. As we havc discussed. llegel ihis sort ofshift involvesa revision itr ho$ li'r consci(rusncss lhinks aboui the wo.ld: bul. in the Phenoncnol.rgt', undcr8ocs theseshiils. it is nol awarethal this !llhough conserou$rcss is the dri!1ng mcchrni\N bchind then. so lhat here the oriSinatbn ol withoul its undeF itsell l(' co.sciousncss lhc nes obiccl .. prcscnts shleh prc..cds Lr us. as n were. behind nrnding hos this hxppcns. (PS: 56). Io consciousntss. appeamthll il thc bxek ot eonscrounre\\' lhe its undcAl!nding (n the $orld d.!.bts bccause world hasrevellcd rl it s c lll( ) r r r n i n e w w a l r h u l l o u s .!s p h e n o menol ogi cal obsencrs. has corsciousncss changed rsclcrr thrr thrshxsonly ilppcncd bccause rts $uv ol lhinking xbout lhe $orld, so that lhes. cognilive shilts do ot comc lboul br" chrnce rnd exlemally . but th(Ngh I r.,.^a/,t ih.t (l'S: 55). as rt moles iiom onc conceplronto sonreassumptions and trking on othem.()nly anothcrby queslionrng whal hrs readyio understand al the end oi-itstourneyis consci(Nsncss happcned ( and why: il is thcn nble lo thrnk reflectivelylnd sell_ ro consciouslyaboul thc cxlcgoricll shllls lhal hale lcd it foNard liom one problem.tic position1othe nert. lo the poirt dt which it gels rid ol rhe semblancc berns bLr ened with somclhingllien lPS: 56). of rs Nndcan rl hn lecl nt honrein lhc wodd. Bciorc such homeconrinS (l rke I)anl es V i rgi l ) pos s ible. hos e re r. w e mu s l i b l b w l l e g c l !s hc gurdc\ ur rhroughrh. iourncy ol the Soul. so that il InNy punli l r t \ c ll t ur r helir i ' o l l h c S fi ri l . rn d rc h rc l e l i n a l l y. hrcul h a compl cl cd .r' w h rt it R rl l v i s i n i tsel l c \ nc nc r . . ol i ts c l l : l h c !$ a re n c s \ ( l' s . le)

Chaptr

The dialectic of the object

lPhenomenology, A. Consciousness)

sense-(ertainty
The Iirsl chapter ofthe Prlr,r'"rdl.Af. on Conscurs Or ness.openswilh a seclionon 'Scnsc-Cerlainly: thc " Th i s" and" Meani rg . A l l hc m oslgencr xllcvcl. con! mentakm arc !8rccd Nbornho{ llcgcl iotcn(lcdus k) concciveof scnse-ccnlllnty. nlmely. as liJnn di eon rhe ol sci ousness thi nks heslwr ! k, SxinkDowlcdSc thal il thew orl di $to ei (peri enccdrrc. ll] or inluili\cly. wit hl(J out applling concepls il: whrt Ilcscl crlls nxnqlf_ 4l9-ruther than nrcdirlcd knoqlcdSe.$hrch Invol!.'s ' al prch.nsi on rrl hcr l hrn i ,,r pr ehension ( PS: 58) l l i scl ed.thl l l l cgel thi nks l r hr s r lhc nhsr elcm cn' th! r lary Nnd iundrmcntal !!ay se hale ol drinkurg about how the ind relabs lo the world. which is why he begins rhe P/i(,,d!r,/./K1 h.rc. At lhc srmc time. gatn\ rls Hegelsrsheslo hrina oul how sensc-ccnlrnty by lhal appears attncriveness trading on I comnlitmenr tl .u.i bl (. D ul$hr(h tums,' ulr, , h( 1r F'r l)t r ohlem sr r c. and onccthis is rccogniledouraltachmenttosenseccr ol will bc bsl. Llrinty a par3digrn knowledSc as

T HE DI A L E C I I C

OT IHE

OBIECT

IH E

OIA LFC TIC

OF IH E

OB J E C T

plausible commihenl underlyingsense What is the deceplively among commntalo.s. cenainty'l Ar this poinr. there is disagrecment is For some inieryreteK. the motivation behind sense-cenainty n which posits d;ecl intuicommirmentto epistemicfoundationalism. hook-up to the live experienceas siving us the kind of unshakeabl world on which knowledgeis builti for othc.s, il is a commihenl to empiricism, according which i.tuitive knowledgeis priorto concep lo tuil knowledgc.because empi.icdl conceplsare leamedand ger thcir h) n rLr nr nE h( , n! h n k e dro o b i (l s a s l h c ) rre g it(n i n e\Il cri (n' t. ind for yer othe6, il is i commirmentio realism.which holds that il rhr' mind is not lo dislod or createthe world. il ncedsto be in a posirion to gain lccess 1() the wo.ld in a passilc mMner withoul lhc medillion of conceprualactivily. so lhe kind of direcl exPeri must be fundamenlalThus. somc cncc cnvisagedby sense'certainty commcnlarors lake Hegels principll llrget in lhis chapterto bc cpis (ct devries 19884:105)r olhers lakc it to be tcmic foundationalism conceprempi.icism (ci K. R Westphal2000r N5)i and olhers take x ( to be r ealis m c l C ra i s 1 9 8 7 :2 0 5 l 9 ). all Now, llcgcl certainlyassociares thcsc r(itudes wilh sense' ofil. sayingrhat claims ccdainty in his preliminarychardctcrizrlion 'l n i o b r t hc r n16r ' an d //re i r' fo m o f k n o w l e d g ie sotaras i nl ol l cs 'l thcm oul to thinSs.wilhoul omllting anylhi!r8 t_rcm nerel)' reaching (PS: 58) Howeve., it is i.gurble that allhougbthe outlook ofsensecenainryis indccdfoundalio alisl. emt;icist. and rcdlin. lherc is a tel dccpcr lsrmtrion hcre thal is really llcgcl's morc l-undarnental .onecnr. lhis is thr rssonrtlionthat bccruscil docsnol use concepls. \.n s c - c c nr r nly r n r p o s i ro n o g .!s p ! th i D g sd , n l rrtl 4l /. w i l houl i\ l a rnd rn\ r hs l, r ( r ( D lion r rtsrn i q u cs tc c i l i c i l l o . p u rep nni cul .ri l ). l hrt ki ,ri \ o do, ng: t n{ L'. .n .rfl } Sr\c su s l h e n r)s r,n rp onN trt nd of know for l (d F e.$hr . h r s ol l h rn g s r\ c o n c rc l cs l n g u l rr.n l r l i csr l hi s rcason i . rc sc n{ . er r x r r r } pn o n | /e s rh . o n c -to n n r. h r(n ro fdi rccl erperi ence o rn o !. r lhc gc nc r r || l )r,r(l l h s l rre l D ts s l l h o u g h l . d sr trerl sappre' (A of h .f \ ur r \ nn, r u l i ,n d !trN l tl l l h .n .o mp re h c n son. n account scnse-ccrhinry rl,rngllrcsclinescnnbc liund rn lhe writingsof HeSel's sec D c N ys h e x i\ ledr iiI s l . r it i.s . i ro m L u d w i g F c u c rb a c o n w ards: ofthc chapl er lnr n rc .) 1 978 dis c us s i orn d l i rd h e r l e re n c c sT h i src r di nS on scns. .cnrinry llrs in sirh thrt olferedabo!. oflhc Phlnonwl'loqr

!s a whole. accordingto wh;ch rhePhenomenotograkesus througha &ries ofinadequatestandpoinrs which rcvealhow our handlingofthe caiegories ofindividual and universalis one-sided. we shall see.rs As w proceed throughrhe .emainingchapters ofConsciousness, rhrough Prceplion and into [b.ce and rhe UndersrandinS. Hegel trjes to show liat conscrousness inpove.ished conceplionofthes rwo categories consislently leadsil into difficulries.rherebybringintsout th diatectical lmitalions in its thinking. jl Hegel emphasizcs that tbr sense-cenainty is the indilidudtiry ofthe objectthar is tlken ro be onrolog;catty fundlmenlal: as h puls rl lowardslhe end ofthe secrion,sense-cerrainty holds rhal .rhe exisr.nce oI crterndl objecls. which can be more precisetydefined as actuul, absolltaly linEulut, pcrsondl. rr./r'nftrdl things, each "hoU,ofthem absolutelyunUkc lnything clse has .absoture cerrdnly and lruth {PS: 66). The aim ol lhis scclion js thcn to bnng out how sense-cenarnty aconccptualview ol knosledge appearsnltural to s |t bcause ilconceives.l indiliduality rn rhis way. as somethingan obFc' hds unrt(' ul i r r an{ pr f lr cut dnr }. \ t - osr ndhu$ b} ttj q_rl " l hs con,Lpri ons frubl (maU c. onsciuL\ nes\ r \ r o \ e< hu$ r hr \ i ( um r viw ofknowledge is mistaken.lnd thrr ils eprstcmicparadigmis iltSe.se-cenainl] adopls its lconcetrudt \ic$ ol- knowledge because l hi nksl h.t rt w i l l grdst $hr l consr it r r c\hc uniquc lt t esscncc ofl he l hi ngrs an i ndi !i durlonl y il it docsnot! \ c eon. cpr s knowing in thal i ndi vi dualllbr (sensc .cnri r ! holds)e, nccpls can he ppt jcdt o many diftirent lhings. and s{' ernnor rL'itn\ rbout rhe thing qud indi!idu.l. This uniquc natu.e bel(nrging(' crch cntitv is lr{ditiona y cnl l cd haecci l rsor ' thrsness. n so t ir r s il has t hr suniquenalur c. I rhc i D di !i dual s.l ai med l o b. l r r educr blco any sh! r e. blequalir ics i r and $ is said to be ontohSicall) pri(tr to any such qualnies.in bcing whal il is in a wiy rh.l is wholl)- unlike anyrhjng elset it rhoretbre uppcrrs lo sensc-ccnarnty thlt rr c.n be grrspcd by rhc sub.ject I or dircclly. withoul rny conceplull lcrIit] bcing requircd: Consciousness. its pan, is in lhis cenainryonly as a pure .t.i fo. or I am in it only as a purc This . and rhe obiecr simjta.ly onty as a pure This . I. /rr.r pafticularI..m cenarnof/rir panicutar 45

T HE D I A T T C T I (

O F T HE OT JECI 'HC

D IA L' C TIC

O'

TIIE OB ' E C T

rhidg. nol b.caus I, qra consciousnss, in tnowing it havc devlopcd nyslf or ihoudt about it in \rious ways; md als(' nol bcausrrr rrira of *hich I rm c.rtain, in vinue ofa hosl of distinct qualities, would b in i|s owD s.lf. rich complci of connections, or relalcd in vsriou! wrys to othcr things. Ncirher ofthes has anyrhinS !o do with thc tiuth ofsns-ccrointy: herc neirherI nor the lhing hasth. signifclnce of a complcx pro.ess rhe of of medrationr 'l' doesnot have ihc significanc a manifold imsgininSor thintinSr nor dosthe 'thing' signiry somelhing that hai a hosl ofqualities. On lhe cont|ary,lhe lhing iJ, and it !.{.mercly bcause ir. lt nt this is the ssntblpoinr for il sensc-knowledge, lhis p'rr6ei"s, or this simple immediacy. and its consrftutes rzrr. Similarly, crlainly as conn4tion is an is^ ttnzs./i/rc purc conncclion: consciousness '/', nothing morc. a pure This i lhe sinSularconsciousness knows a pur This . or lhe singh nem. { P S : 5ti 9l In so fsr as sense-lcrtainty maintainsthar lhc being of thc objcct is consrituted its unque Indrvrdualrr) thrsway.sn$-ccnarntynaru. by In needs b aconceptual. lhat such lo and rdlly also holdsthat knowldge : for (il holds) if we bring in kno*ledge is rhe ''ilhest' ^nd'tuesf termslhal can only lak us away f.onr concepls,we bnng in Sencral knowing the objecr in irs singulanty(ct EL: gll3. p. 62. 'Empiricisnr . . . leavesthoughl no powersexcepl flbstrnclion and formal univer salily and idcntity. ). \\hat Hcgel stts out k) show. howcler. is lhrl 'in rhe cveni. rhis vcry ../ruiri provcs irsclf k, bc lhc mos( nbsrrrct ir ndooor c s r r rl r' (P S: 5 8). l No{. as Hcfcl poinis oLrt,sensc'ccrtrin$ l,tccs u dillicult} n.riShl !wry. rs it rr hrrd lo scc ho$ scnsr-ecnainly claim lo bc can rwnrc ol nothinSbut rheobjectlx'iine it as srngular rndividual.when it is also aw!r. ol ilsclf ns a s bjecl havins this cxpcdenceofthc dillircnccs croppinBup here wc iind in objeci: mong thc counrlcss pure brinS evcry casc lhut thc crucial one is thal. in snsc-cenainty. the at oncc solils up inlo whal we havecalled lwo"Thises", one"This'' as "l". and lhe olher"This !s object {PS:59). Al lhis stage, howelef. claimsrhatahhough consciousness awarcofilselfas is se.se-cc.tainty 46

I subjcct, the objcct is indcpndcnt of il, so thst lhe obj.ct is slill a rclf-subsisr.nt and singular individual that cen be known immedislly: 'But thc objecl ir: il is whal is ru., or il is th. cssnc. h is rcSsrd_ lcss of whcthr it b known or noti and it rmrins' .ven if it is nol lno\r/q whrlas thcE is no knowl.dge iflhe objeri is nol thrt' (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 itslf thc object is in fafl lhe kind of essenccthat snsc{enainty proclaimsit to b (PS: 59). Hgl s centml stmtcgy againstsen*'cenainly is lo argu' thal whst sens-cenainty Sraspsin expnenceis nol uniqu to lhe individual object. so rhal apprehcnsion has no advlnlagc over concepdon in this regarili$ns-cenaintythercforecannol claim that il isjustified proper' in treatinSihe individual a. a'this'over and above its shared priorily oflhc individual tis. so thal the epislcmicand metaphysical is hrEb) undcnn'ned Hegel bgtn\ hrs argument bv aling sensetells us aboul it: ll i5' then' oflhc ob.jecl c.nainty whal its expcrience 'What is the fr,r'1"' (PS:59) ilstfthat must be asked: sens-cenainty respondsby eying lhat for il the object is simply Scnse-{ertainty p 62 'l-rom Emp'nctsm (cl prtscnl: it existshere-and-now EL: "'il8z' cam thc cry: 'Stop roaming in lmptv abnraclions kccp vour evs opcn, lay hold otr Inan and natur'"!s rhcv arc here b(tbru vou. cnjov lh presentmomcnl . . tlcncc. this inslincl sLizcdupon lhe prcscnl. I l l dsc\ ( r ' llcF( l f R"c( . 1' kr r t Huc lhal thc H erc. l hc l hN . rhc 'exisling here'.nd-nos is llr liom un;quc 11) (ftjcct, as diflcrenr hc hcr. .nd no$ . rnd thus $ can times and places hrs differef,lthingsrsensc-certrinry lhcrctb.c t:tiled to acquiretnowledgeoflhe objcd in rls siugulnrnrditiduatrty.but only ol a proPcnv and hencc is unive6'l: rhat can bclong lo mlny individu:rls. i' in thrssimplicity [No$] is indiffercnrto what haPpns rri lusl it ils bein8.jusl as much al$ as littlc as NiSht and Day .lrc 's allccted by this its oiheF Day and Nightr it is nol in lhe lea$ bcinS-A simplc thinS of this kind which r lhrouShrcganon. which is neithcr This not That, a ,ot-Ilttl and is with cqual such a thing we clll a indifferenceThis as $ell .s That !ri!c.rol. So il is in lact lhc universalthat is lhe true lconlenl]

rHE Dr ar t ( f r (

o f rH E o a l rc T

IH T

OIA TE C IIC

Of

IH I

OB II(I

ol scnse-certsrnty . The samewill bc rhe casewirh lhe other .. form of'This . with Here'. Hrc' is. e.g.. rhe rre. tf I tum mund. rhis truth hls vanished and rs convenedinto us opposite: 'No lrec is herc. bur a housc inslead. .Her. irself dos nor \,anishr thc contrury.n abidcsconstant rhe vanishingoflhe on in housc.ihc tree. ctc.. and is inditTe.enrly houseor tre. Again. rhereforc. the This shows tself tot. a nediuktt sinpli.,itr. ot n u,n\r'tu|,| . lslense,ccnainryhasdemonsrrared irs own ;n s.ll rhrt thc rrurhot rrs objcci is thc unive$at. (P S :60 l ) Ilc8.l thcr.lbrc r)$ n drlcnrnu ti)r sensc-ccdainty. fibt option The rs thxt scnsc-ccnrrnllnrry Insislrhrr lnot\lcdEe ol thc objccr rcquirer lhnl sc 8tuspih uniqucc\scncc:hul thcn il nrusr altow lhat suchknowlcdgc i\ unllt.ln ble hccausctl tums our thar nolhing we can kno$ rbour rhc obj.ct rs uniq$ lo it. rl $c nickJUstto scnsc-cenarnty. Thc sccondoption is thrt scnsc-ecnainry mav deny lhat thc object h s any such un'que csscncc.in which crs. rhcrc is no rcirson nor lo usc conccptsin scckinSknosledSc. and so no grounds tbr priontrzing sensc-ccnarnly an cp'stcnlc posrr()n.HcSclarliculilcs lhis ditenm. rs mosl clcrrly al thc end ol the sccri()n,whcrc he sumsup hrs posirion rgarnsr those *ho assenthrt lhc rcrliry or heing ot cxiemut lhings tdkenas Thisesor sensc{}bjcchh.is absnurl.rrulh f(tr conscn'usncss. I P S : 65) l ll r hc y a c i u u l l ys rn tc d ro !r ' l h i s h n of prl )cr w hrch l hcy nr c an, th c y $ i rn rc d o v ,i . rh e nth i s i s i npossj bl e, rl l becuusc th. \cn\uousThr\ rhi[ rs trrcxnr {trr!]r /,.,.dr'lkt/ by tangunge. $l' 1. h b e l ' n rSs (o n \c u a rf\\, I e I' ,l hrl * hreh rs i rhl rfnrl ) I(r unr \ Lr s ,rlIn l h c r.t| 1 .1!l l .n rF n , \i rv i l . rr w dutd l hcrul brc l er unblt r$ x \. rh o \L\ h o \rx n e dro d L .(h bci r { outd norh( rbt. r , ' e, ) nr l i l c rf cd c \(n l i tro n b rl s o u trtb c conrp{ttcdo tcrvc i l rh . i l, ' olhc rs .$ h o { ,rrl d rh rn r\c tv e s i n r tty hrv. ro adnrj l k) l \l1cx||ng rt!trrt (trr'crhrn! $hrcl r\ r,,/ Thcv cendinly nr!,rm. rhcr. r/r\ hrt ot p.pcr her. $hr.h rs qxrrcdificrcnr fronr rhc bn nrcnlk ed rbovcr but thcv s{y lcl|nl /rirlr'. .rr./rrl or r.4vrrA .r^11r'. -rh$luk,lt \i,tgtl.n .n i.r' and $ on: i.e (-onscqucnrty. rhev sr\ ol them only whar is !,i,t,!// whrr is 48

callcd the unullcnble is nolhing else than the untrue.the iftrtion.l. s'hat is me.ely meantlbur is not actuallvexpressdl ( PSi 66) ho$evcr. lle8cl allows scnseBeforc rcachin8rhis conclusion. to inrlial difficully. offinding ftar 'Now' cnaintyto try to rcspond 'ts and 'Here cannot constilulc the unique individualing nalure it is lookinSfor. as many thing! crn bc Now' and llere . Sen$-ccnarnlv-s firsl respnse is |o rry and make NotI and tlere a unque chnracil lcrisiic ofrris individull. bccause is lhe only lhing thal 's cuntnlly howelcr' is prcsenl in r'r'xpcricnce qu! subjecl.I{cgcl s rcsPonsc. prcscnl in lhc expri.nceof !o point oLrl$al o//t.' thrngs lre 'rl'.'r ,ubjects.so lhere is nolhing ur lhis rclalion lo n subjeclthal indi!idurt s the objret a! sueh: I, r/,^ 1". scc lhe lree and asscdthat llcrc r! i| rrcc: bul anolhcr"l" sccsthe housemd nuinlains lhal Hcrc is not a lrcc bul a house instcdd.Bolh lruths hilrc lhc sdmcauthenllcathat and thc cenrinty and lssurance tion, viz. thc nnntdi.rcy ol scLing. lanishcJrn the othcr both ha!c lbout ihcir knosng: but thc on. trulh .. . The t i s mcrcl y unrvcr sr llikc Nosi. ller c . ot Thr s in gneral(P S :6l l ). In orilcr ki i\oid thi: drtliculrl. sc !c-eerl.rnt) lh.n r\*-nr lhc hcr ir uni quci ndr!i durl i l ) ol l h. oh r cer r cxPcnen. lng c r r d now by tryingto igno.e rhL e\,srctr(c ol rnt olhcr {reh {rbi((lr. lrnrcs rnd pl aces: l . r/r\ " 1 . rs\tn then lhc lt . r . - is I r r . t m ( l do uol r r nr round so lhdt lhc llcr. $oul,l brconre li,r nre r,I I rr..: Nlso.I lak' no noti ccol l hc l i et thrt rn( nhcr"l \ cc\ lhc llcr c r s, r , r lr cc. or No$ . s nolthatI m)\cl t rl rnol htr t' rr( rr [ c lh( ll. t . r \ ooi- lr cc. lhc ( l'S day.(h l hc coD l rrrl . I r,r lur c lr ! r oll I nlur r r Dg- 6l - l) lhc .enxrnl \'r l r hisP( t nr .ho$c\ cr . r s t hr l r l- r l ( t ocs di l l l cul ryl i )r terrsc nol aelino$l.dgc (h. c\rtlcrr.r ol ('lhe' plNcs. lrnlc\' {rtrl.cts. n'l rr obj ects. ern onl y gi \c !n osr unr \ c( l$t gnar ( n oi $h. r l r i m c! s hy Thi r '. by Poit t insar r dslvin8 Now. xndso ' N o$.Il crc.l .:rnd onr bul thr\ acr ol pornlrng crn rr I'csr indicatc J Punctualprcsenl thal is no l(nlgerPrc\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 momcntsand hcNc crlcnd\ ltnr8 enough lo bc pretcd otrt. and 'Itdrc !s u plurnltl) .l pliccr lrte$r\e. rl hls bccn lbrccd k! rbrndon 49

I HE

O I A T I C T I C OF T HE OSJECI

TI]E

OIA LE C TIC

OF i H

OB J E C I

solipsisticposilion and accepr rhar ihc .Now, can be applied to 'ls many limes and thc llcre lo msny placesr has lhen faited lo avoid it lhc admission th.rt Now and 'Here are universal.and hence are unablc to pknldc the kind of uniquc individuarionir is k,okins fior (seePS: 64 5). Scnsc-ccdflinry therefore cnds up unableto make good rh kind of oniolosicalcommilmentundcAinnins its conceprion knowledge: of as Mrrcusc hrs pul ir, Scnse-exprricncc lhus itsctf demonsrmted has lhnt rts rcal cont.nr is nol the panicular but rhe unjvcrsat'{Marcuse le55: 106) Ir {'mdimcs allegcd thrr Hegcl is herc nrrackingthe ^ t nc t aphy s c rl s rh a tth e rca rc i n d i !rd u a l s al l (cl Li i w rl h l 9?l : trc al l:10. Hegcl s lnJ*cr ir nbsrrrcl:whar rcmarns only lhe ..universil' is whrch is indil-lcrcnt clerythin8 rhar cxisls here irnd now ): but this lo secmsmistakcn,!s lll llegel crilicilinS is the viet\ rhar rhc indi's !'.iual qua individrul cdnnotbe concrivcd or lhoughtabout. bur onty upprehcnded. brcauseonly apprehensnln trunscends wh.rt is univcBal and reachcs rndivadual. thc tlcSel\ argumenr, we hale seen,is rhat as cven apprchcnsion d(xs nol rran$end rhc univeBil. fo. in nmrehcn sror we lrc tusl lwarc of rhc objccr as a .this . which docs not consritute rhc obtccl s distinctr,lc plni.ularity. bur mrhcr its mosl abslractand unilcrsll character Assuming lather lhan dcnying our caprcity to 8rasp individuals.Hcgcl thcrcfor. concludcslhll know, ledge indir i d u l l s c a n n o l .e q u i res to !o b Lyond vcrsuti ry rhc of u uni in $.v sensc-cenlrnrysupposcs.Adoprrn! rhe mcrhod of Innnlncnr (ritique. llcScl hrs ihus brou8hrour how suchmcraphvsrat mi$on (cpiions crn hrv. philosophrcalconscqucnces lhal xrc protbundt! {lnodiDg: by diagnosng thesc misconc.frions.Hegct hopcs th r,a\ ohsc^crs wc sill n,) kDgcr be lcmpl!(l k) rilopr nhctroDrcnologicil r he s k lc r l c fr(e to l o SJ " .ls c n rc -(c n rrn l y s the n.xr sccl i (' n A on 'rc ' P f r e. f t r on ( )r th . l h , g rn d l )c e rfl | o r' $ rl l sho$. how cv.r.w hi l c rt{Llt nu! hr\c l..rnt n' rclrct sense-ccnnilt)-. th. po{ r r r n n no { trl .! o n tn s l c rd\rl l fro \c e qual l yprobl cmal c.r\ .on\.ro!\nc\\ rcsniRls kr rhc drlli(ultr(s lir..d b) scnsc,c.narntv b\ rtlenrpling k, !o bcyonrlil i. an inxdcqurlc sry. silh a conccprir)n o1' r l' \ idux lir yr n (l u ri rc rs rl i ryth rt i s s l i l l l i n i tcd.

Per<eption
Having come to lce thal it cannolcohrcndythink ofindividualiry in tcrns ol \ome son of Lrnique indj!rduatin8essen(c.consiousnc\\ is nolr readyto conceivcof individualsas bcinS constituted chamcby Grislicsthey havc in common with other individuals.and so io Ihink in lcrms of univcrs.rlity as wll as individuality. Ilegel thereforc the describes transilionirom Sense-ccrtrintyro the ibllowing srcttun on Perceplionin thcs tcms: 'lmmediatcccnainiy doesnot takc over l hcrrurh. forrr\' rurhhrhcun i\ eBJl. $hcr cr \ f t ndinr y$anr ir clf pr c on hendthe This Pcrccplron. the olhcr hand.rakeswhar is prcscntro il !s a unilcrsdl . . Snr.c thc principlc ol lhc ob.iecl. unrlcr$I. is lhe in ns s,mplicily ,erlidl{,../univcsrl. lfic objccl must cxpresslhis ils naturc ;n us own sclll This il does by showing ilsclf lo bc /r. ?rirg N i th Munrr\t n.i (P S : 67) . Howcvcr . bcc useper cept r on st r ll is at th. letcl of s.nsc-cxpc.icncc. unirc6als oui ol qhich ii lakcs the indr!iduls lo br rorstrturcd ar of the implest kind. that is. rhcy ar. !.nsiblc prope.lies, I'kc bcinSwhne. cubrcal.tan. and soon. As llcgel m.les clenr al thc cnd ol rhc sccrion.rhis inrroducriono! r limiicd conceptroo univcrsllrry will in l-acr of lum oul ro bc inldcquntcr'lhus the singularbeinr ol n:nsc I!i the lelcl ol scllsc-ccnarntyl do.s indrrd vani sh n rhc di rk' cti (r1nro\cm dt ol innnedr lr c i ccnaint y ll lal lhc l|r l cl cl of perccptronl b.con)e s unilcAr [ ly. hnr r r is only r nznr r A !rir, r/t^r (PS: 17) l h. uun ol thF \..trr! rs rhcrelbrct() hnn8 our rhat conscrousnes\ g.rs ur,, d'lliculrc|I r onl! conccr\$ ot nrtcr$als In thcseltmrtcd t.nns. drr'liculr$ lhxr lcrd ir to losc larrh rn thc l cry.nrol og]' ot rhrrg\ rr)(l pn) pcnlcs $hr eh lhr s eon. cplk, nr s or hdsed.nd l o l urr l ,' th. mtrc r ldr cr l onr olog)in r br ccs scusscr l l dr I ( l hc Iol k,w i nS sc.rl of. our ol shi. h o ( lir icr cnr . onccpr i{n'l u|lr ! c. Al lirsl. bosc!cr. rhc po\irion ofpcl((ptk applarssllisliel(try lnd :lrrightfoN. . r\en .onnnon*rs'erl: conscousnc\\ hcrc conc('i!e5of oblccts rs cotrrbinatidrsol scnsihlc propedi.'s.rnd so trc.rl s crcb rndrl i fi rl l Js a bu ndlcol unr vcr sls, as in AI so: Thi s rbnrrcl uni versr lm ediunr . which cnn be cllld sim ply ' l hi nghoodor' pxfeessnceis not hinS elsct hin wharHcr cnnd . Now hale prcvcd lhemsel!e! k, bc. !r1. r rinplr, t,gdtr./rrl r ol 5l

50

Dr ar E c ir c o r T H r o a rtc t simple a plumfiry: btlt the many att:. ih thei. .lettninutene\t. lhemselvcs. universals This sall is a simpleHere,drd at thcsame of time manifold:ir is whit and dfto lan. dfto cubical in shapc. n spccificweight, etc. All rhesemany proprticsare in a single simplc 'llcrc', in which. threfore.they inrcmcnelmte;none has a diffcfenr llerc from th others,bul eachis cverywhere. in lhc srme t{erc in which the othrsare. And. at thc sametime. wnhdul bcin! scpnralcd different Heres.thcy do not afTecl by creh otllcr In rhis inlc.pcnctmrion.The whitcncss dcs nol erc.:on Illcct rhc.ubicrl shaf'c.rnd ncithcraffectsrhe tan raste. thc .ontmry. sincccxch is ns('lf { simplc rclalinSof self 1oslf it l.rvcs thc olhcrs nk,ne.nnd is conneclcdwnh lhcm only by the indillirenr Also. this Also is lhus lhe purc univcrsalitsell or the medium.lhe thinghood. which holds thcm togctherin (PS: 68 9i lranslalionmodificd) ol Pcrccptionthus treatseach Ind'lidual as a co-instantiatrotr eme coll.rtion of propeny'insrrnecsin a single spatial rcSion. so thal (1or cx,rmplc)lhis piccc ol sali is sccn rs nolhingmorc than cxemplilicationsol $hirencss. radncss, rnd so on co-cxistinS logetherin one ll.r!ing introduccdwhrr is rraditronallyknown us a bundle v r e\ r 'ol t heo b j e c a sa n A l s o .l l .g c l n o w a rS uei thalthrsvi c$proves t unnahlc. and givesnse lo (s opposrlc.shich takesthc obJcetto b a '()nc. lhxl r\. . un'lied strbstrn.c or subslBtu olcr Jnd rt{\e its r.l !l rn rd rn $ h r.h h r\ th u \.m c rg.d rt rs otrl ) tfi c chl r r ir r r (n l ro i ti \c u D r\!rs rl i l \ l h rt i s {t i i rsl obser!e.ldnd ( le\ c l( ,PC h u t r l i rrl h (rs (l c p re s c n l is scl l :w hi chmusl nl sobc di t , . r l( r i fl ,...r L ,i (.,rr,rr l ' \' r. ,r rh ( m.,n) .l (rr' n i nr< nn' F ( dr e\ $ c r. \rn c l l y l | r(i rl l c rrt k , o n t rn o rhcr.l thcyw crcsi nrpl ) i in(lnr|ljl:" \cll-rclrrcd. thc! $ouki not bc dctcmliDrl(.:ldr rhey iru orlv d.r.nnrn.rc rn so l.r !s lhc) ,/,r;,r.?rnt. lhcmscllcs lrom onL rnoth.r. and,rtrl. th.nrsclvcsr{) rrr.^ xs to thcrr opfosilcs Yct: !s thus otposcd to onc ,norhcr rhcy crnnor be $hi k , S ( r h e r n th c s i n rp l e n i ry o l l h e i r m ednrm. ch i s i us' as i u 52

TH E OIA IE (' II(

OT IH F

O3]E C T

to ssential them as negrlion; th difTcrcnlraronof the propcF ties, in so far as il rs nol an indi{Terenr dillcrentiation bur is exclusive,each propcriy negadngthc othrs,lhus thlls oursidc is ofrhis simple mediumi and lhe medium.lhrefore. nor mcrely aD Also. an indillerenl unny, bul a Onc as well. I unity which d.r./rr./cr an othcr. The One is tll3 monent ol neAutiont it is irs.lt quite simply a relatio,rot slf 10 slf and it excludesan othel and it is thar by which 'thinghood' is determincdas a Thing. ( PS:69) this pass8e is rirher ob$urc and hardro inlerprel.One Uofonunarely, by CharlesTaylor (scc Taylor I9?2 inieresring readingof il rs -livcr rhal l6E ? I). Hc sugSests llegel is claiminSthrl we can only thrnk of pmperliesas determinalcby contasting lhenr with othcr p.opcnics. but this notion of nropc.lirs being conlrlstcd with othersrequiresus to think that nothing shrch has one could halc anothcr('nothrng can be rcd lnd Sreenall o\ca. nothinscan bc squareand round . and so on)i but (Taylor sugscslr) of cours.withoul thc nolion ofa plnicularor somerhin8 clo\cl], rc$mblinE a p,nicuhr. sucha phmsewould h. merningless:for n rs only ol paniculars.ol thrngsihrt can benr propnics.that onc c{n sny thll lhcy crnnol hc hoth rcd and green' (i bi d.: 170). Thus.on l i yl dr's vr cw,Hcgcl s m r yc li( nn r hc Alvi lo to depcnthc ()nc i s desi gncd sho$ t hr l t hcr c is r kr n( lol r r r Lr luiil d.ncy here.that $e coul(in t l)gi.rllv hrlc our pn,I}en! conccptsil w e di dn l opeB tew i l h I' N nr culr r \( ibid: l6el. ' l | o* crcr. l hc drl l i cul tv$r r h r hir r cr ( l'ngr s lhr l r t nr sl! kest hc posilrcnli$nr Nhrch rhL irgrmcnt stJns.rnd {} t-arls an Inrerprelaas til,n. Accordin8k) lrvhlr. lhc l)o{ron rhm rrcuh lh.lhrng rs rn Also' to cir or i s srl rd hol d rh.r ' fntP cnrct . . . lc\ r sll llongsiLlc ch herr n lhc I unr!eA cbul nol houndl ()B t ir h$nr opan'cuhr s {lb'd. : 169 70) . Au1. on my.lccouni. r,r conecivcol thc oblccl !s rn Alvt is no! to deny thrt il is n prrliculnr. b.ciruscon thc bundlc !icw wc ern sljll concerle of rhc obrecr (l or cramplc)- r hispicceoI salr 'Jt r s just t hat t he as panicullr objccr is Lr.wc(l as nothrngo!er rnd rholc rhc rnslantratcd unr!ersalsthar con\trtutc rt. I rh.rcforc think taybr ts *ronS ro chaF lcrcrizc thc posrlion llcSel stnns liom herc ns onc lhat lacks the conceplof a panicul r alioSclhcr:il jun concerlcsof plnrcul.rrs rn r ol uni! cr s. |lsr . ccddi n$!y (!s bunJl cs rn sunr r lt ed 53

THE O I A I E C T I C O F T HI

OSJICI

TH r D TAL EC TTC Of Tfi a OAItC T

So, is thercanotherway ofunder"landingHegel'spositionherc? An altematile rcadinscan be developcdby comparingthe passage we are considerinSlo lhe following paragraphfrom F. H. aradley s Ippedtun.e anl R.oIi^: we may okc thc l-rmrliarinslincc of a tump ofsugar. This is a thing. and it h s propenies. adjccrilcs which qualify ir. Ir is. for cxampl.. whirc. nd ha.d. and swccl. The sugar.wc say. r.! all thdt: but $hrt lhc ir cln really mcln sccmsdoubtful. A rhing is not rny onc ol rrt qunlitics,il you rakethar quality by irsclf: if 's{ccl' wcrc lhc sarne.s smply swcet lhe thinSwould clearly hc nor srccr And. again. in so far as sugar is swecr ir is not while or hnrdt lor rhesepropcnics.rre all dislind. Nor. again. can lhe thing bc all its propenics.ifyou lake them cach sc!e.illy. Sugaris ohvously not merc whilcncss. merehardncss. and mc.c swectncssi irs reality lics somchowin irs unity. llut il for on thc olher hrnd. we inquirc whar rhe.e can bc in thc thinE bside ns seleral qualities.*e nru hamed once morc we can dilco:_erno rcal unrryexislang oulsideihesequnlnics.or. ngnrn. ex;stingwirhin rhcm (B radl cyl q.l 0r l 6) Now. Bradley does not here refer crplrcilly to Hescl (lhough his cxlmple ofa lu'nF ofsuSar may br supposed recall llcgol s sinrlar lo c \ J m nl( of . p ,.(L r' r' $ [). J n d h e ,\ n o t s n ttrrf Js a tht I'hlnonk\tulolt: nonclheless. thcrc rrc inteRstrtrg prfullcls bet$ccn lhc l*1) prssrScr.{nd thc !rSunrcntofthc one nuy help sh!'d Ighl on rhc rrSunrclrtol lhe orh.r. l- r l' c I lc g .l . l l fu d l ty h c rc r \c \ l i ,!r r i t bundl c !i cw k' a \ uhs lr r r unr irttrrh utr.$ l l c h ,j g rr)s ! h b n g the rcduchonrn le h posi lr dnol lhc hor d h th e o n s r. o n l e n l rri l s crnd' vi dunl \rh rh thrngw nh ns . l t nr penr c s lt r\, to r L r.n n p l c w h rt.. rn d h x rd ,.nd sw eet). l l c l hcn r s l\ ho$ qc crn r!! l h rt l h rsrr s o .r\ l h r' \o u l d nuke thesrngl .rndi t ( lur l r dc nt l e rl\rtth rh r.c d rs l rn c rtn [e n rc s. l l c arS ucsthnt thi s diilic ully c r nn o rh c .l a d c d b ! ma k rn gl h e l h i ng i denti crlw rrh i usl onc of lhcse pk'pcrlrcs.hccause rs no nr(xe identrcalwxh lhrs one il prcpcrty than thc orhcrs.;n so lar.N x aho has olher propcnicsnnd lhcsclrc dislrncl Nor eln lhc diticuhy bc c\Ndcdby making lhc rhin8 54

idcnlicalwith allthe proprties takentoselheras a collectionili)r thcy .tc hany and the thing is one ( Sugar is obviously not nrerc whiiencss. mrc hddnss. and m.e swetnessifor its reality li6 somchow in its unity'. wherehrcby Sugar'Bmdlcy would appar still mean to lh. individuallunp ofsugar, mrherthan thc stufforkind). Faced wrrh this puzzle. Bradlcy then inrroducesthe subsrrdtunvanribute view, which hold! that the unrly of rhc thing is somcthi.g over and sbove its many qualities:rrthcr than idenlifying the individualwith its prop.rtics, thc* are nos sccnas inheringin it. so thal thc is can now bc t..ated l]san 'is ofprcdicrtion mlherlhan an rs of identity.llowever. Bmdley rhenrui*s rhc rrad'tionalobjecrrcn. that we are now lcli wnh the bntltrngideaofthe thins as a barepanicular'. lackingIn any propcnies (cl Hume 1978: 16. lN]onc will assen.that substancc cilher is a cobur. o. a sound. or a lasre . . . We hrt'e thcrcfore no idc,r of subslanee. dislincl ftrm lhal ofa collcclk,n ol plrlicular qualitics.nor have wc any other mcrn'ng when we talk or feasonconccmin8it. ). Now. thc passa8c lrom the Pr.?,r,(,r,r,{r we halc bcn consrderinS mry bc nudc lessmyslerious rnlcrprct'ngir In thc lghl of hy Arddleys argumcnt.(lrr litnhcr hclFful discussion ofthai rgunrnt. Iec llaxter 1996.)l-hus. llegel may bc undcrskrd !s suggcninSrhai thcrc is somethrng unsrrislircloryin thc hundlc !iew of rhc obiccr s ( ot ol 6 co-i nstl nl i ati on pk)pcrtyinslanccs ( hc t hr ngr s xn Al! r ') r s s,on ns $c rcalzc lh|l th.sL J'iopen'r\ rrc d,n'trel lionr onc a othcr. a$ lhey musth( ifthcr_ rrc k, h( dctLnnrnrr.t l;r rhcy rfc only dcrcF minale In so fir rs thr! ,/r/ln,fldrf th.nNl\cs Iron onc rnorhcr.Jnd ru/d/.,rhemsehcs,', ,rh,a rs k) thcrr otpo\itcs ). lor ii rhcn rppcah lhai wc cannoi jdcntrlt /r/r $rth 11,.r" propcnics.lirr rhcn -irrdirrLlur!l n would bc nranyrnd Dor one ( Ycri rs lhu\ opposeLl onc rnolhcr lo th.) cnnnol l otcl hor In rhc sinr plc be unil\ ol t hcr rm cdiunrwhi( h is . !s csscnnalto thcn) rs ncgrtirn ) wc nay then dls(nSutshrhe Just thrnS as onc frcm lh. prcpcnics as many. .l shrch poinl *c hulc lmvcd ar lhc subslralum'altrtbulc !i.\. ol trnrvcrsals prcdrcarcs .s rn i nhcnng (ml herl hanconsrir ulr nS) t hc t idual hin8.Thus.l{c8cl I ndr t us.s thc onermanypfublcm lo Ber us fr()m lhe bundlc view lo thc substrulum,'anribule !rcw. in a way thrl Br ly also adon|ed. Moreolc.. as we shrll scc shonly. Hegel likc Bradleythoughlth.rtrhe tubstrllumrltributc \ic$ is jusi as problcmrlic as the bundlc vrcw:

THI

O IAL ECIIC

Of

T lIt

OSItCI

TH T OIA LE C Il <

OF T|l

OA ]E C T

bur whcre Bradleywenl on 1oclaim rhat this mcans can neverrcach we a cohrntview ol rcrl(y, I{egel merely toot rhis puzzleto show rhar wc musl start wrth a deeper conceptionof universaliry rhan that adoptedherc by p.rccpiion. (For morc on the genenl issuc of how Bradlcy s pcssnrism.ontrasrswith HeSels larionatisric oF,rimism. se S lc m 1991b :2 (x r,l .) llcforc qes$ how t lc8cl's discussion de!elopsalongthesclines. rl is InlcrcslinS sk wherhe.theHegel/Br dley ahemplto underminc n' lhc hundlc \ics sueeccd\. Onc stand{d obJection Bradtcys arguro nrrnr tlird rhusk) IIclcl r (n thrs Emdlcyanreading)is rhal hc fails lo di\tnrguishthc r'ol rd.Drnvtiom thc rs o! prcdrcarion Ul,rnshard (ct. l9x . l lll l8 ) l n rt th i s d b j e c o o n p p c n N tni sgui ded. i n trd the i as rr$un)enrsecns d!'srSncd take us /r,4r rhc ii of jdenrily ldoprcd lo by thc bundlc vicw r,rrhc is ofpredrcalron rdoprcdby thc sLrbstrnhrml rlhbutc vicw (whcrc rhrs is ihen sl(rwn to bc no morc sirristircrory rs.r $ay of undcat.rndrng rhe is' rh.n ihc bundle theorisls rd.nliry .on.!phon. bcclusc rhc rhrng of whi.h rhc anribure is prcdicalcd tf,'conres mtncnous b.rc pan'cuhr). A norhcrobjeclionnriShrbc rhar a !s so hr presenlcd. llcScl,Rmdlcvar8uD.nt olerlooks rtr ob!krus thc rc\ponscby the bLrndlc theo.ist.nrmcl). thlr lhc lhing js rdcnricrt$irh lrs propcnics ik ur r t(ldti.rt to trx, dnothrr, wherc rh t rct ron is suilicrenlto mdkc lhc scver.tlprcpcnics inkr a nnglc indi!rduat. Now. rn lict Bradlet hinrscll does considerrhN dnoon. md dcals w[h rr h.B.l) bv lno n8 on ki qucst,on*hcrh(r r.brkhs crn posrblv mate a ntnv Inlo n onc r lhrs uay. or shcrhr rh. manv onc is$rc w,tl nlsrts rc cnr$gc (\cc llrrdlc!' I 9-10 I (, Ltl t lc8.l. howercr.(locsnor ( or \ r dc r t hr so b t.c rr . rn d o l T .rsn 0 s u (h S c ncrdl .rgunrcnl rgni nsl r . l! r r nNi hul i n r..t l | r\ r\ n o t n .c .s s rn l \,r ( l U i cuhv.hr. x sh(rkl h. r c r nc , nh. r.d J i t rh r\ p (n n rrh . o trr!u \nl \ he i s (onsden S l re th t r ' t ) . n\ - t r nr \ . r\x l \ ts h rr.tr.\\. l rn n .s s rr. ). lrttrc.n {hr.h no ruh(l r x nr ho \ . n) rh e rr \c .s n \ e x n n o r ( o \ rrc.me rn thrs$r) l a\ h h rr llLs c l hr nr , . ll 'n u r\ rt l h c $ h rn c \\ (i o c s o rJtl .d rhccuhrcrl n pc. n r r ) ( ln( r lherr r ti .r\ rh erx n tl s r.. c rc _ rn l h c e onl .ary. neccrch i s I si s r D' t lcr c lx lr n !o l { e l l to \c l l i l l c a \c srh e(n h c rs onc,andrsconncetcd !l wr lh t hc dronl ! b J "h c l trtl tl c ru nAl n ) (PS i 6 8 r))). l l ' I hu\ . hi trn s h .8 u n w i th rh c b u n d l crh cory ofrhc obtcct. teget l . r . ( \ r h. , r r c n ,.,n \n r!.b l c nr. \h ,,\ h ,' s r.{ h ( x,u\n(s (Jrnor R .r. ' ' 56

thc reductioninconccptionofthe individual wilh which ir bcr n. so that we anivc at thc substmtufttartriburc conceprjoninstcrd. Itcgel now sctsoul loshow rharcons.iousness cannorresrconlcnrwilh cirher view. claiming thal lilt is only a mauer ot devclopingrhe contrudic, tronsthatareprescntrherein'( PS: 70) llcgclarSucsrharcons.iousness oscallalesblween the one conceprionand the orher. somelmes trealrnglhe objecras a bundleofpropenics whrch rhcnundcrmines its scnscthal thc object is really a unified individual disrincl trum other individuals.and somctrnrcstrentrn8thc obJccras a uniry ovcr and abo!. ils pluralityofprcp.nies. whrch thcn l.ads ro th ideaofo char, aclerlcss sub.rrnlumand b.ck to the Thrs ol sense,certarnry Pcrceplron clnnot decjdc whrch conceplionis rhc correcrcharactcn/:rfion of how thrngs!re. and whrch conceptionmcrcly resultslrom lhc delusive rnduencc us ol how things.ttpcar ro us to bc: on The objecrwhrch I apprehend prcscnrs itsclfpurely as a),!,: bur I also per.eilo in it a propeny which rs luirtadl. and which rherebyhnscLDds rhe sinaullr'ry lol rhc objecrl.The lirsr bcing ofrhe oblcctr! L'L.sscnce a Onc wrs rhcrcfore ils lru. bcing. as nor tlut jncc lhc d/,/,r r is $hal is truc. lh. unrrurhli s In nrc: Dy dpp.ehensron nol conecl.( h xccouDr hcr 4ir . / \ d/ i^ of w rs o1r thc p.operry.I nNsl rnrhcrtal.lhe ohicerr\ccsscncc bc o thc kr $hol c. (dD ,rr,/A I no$ I unhcrpue. r ! . lhc pr or lcr i!( lr bc llt.rntn tu. '\1"\.J ti lnoth.r .nxl!\eludrng rr. thrs Idrd not in l-rict npprLh.r{! rlf ohjcetr\( .ss.n.. ror.ell! \hcn I d.Uncd i .\ a ttrtrtorh $nI o r hcn.or xs r . onl|n! , r ) . on r ccountof tlic Jrkntivtur'\\ of thc n(,pca). I Drun hrclt Lrprtr. conli nurry !n(i posi rrhc ohl c. t i! . cs\ c ec r s r ( ) n. r hxtc\ et udcs

( t ' s :r 0 t )
l i E crl $i tl r thc t$o-l i )l d \r! ol \ r c{r n8 r h. objr . t . J\ onc xnd ns m!n). p(r.epror r\ t,rn h+tq.cn on rhe one hrnd nralmt rhc obteel indcpcndcntol ,rs pluftIry of tn,pcnrcs. and rr..r,ng rlcnr !s sccondu' 1, nr !\ hol dr g l h al t hc Thr n! r s whir conly k) , r , . 1. . r . rnd .rA, lan to orl torSuc. .//v) cubical Io ,rr k)Lrch, and so on (PSr7l), and on lhe other hrnd lxributing rhrsc p()pcrlics to lhc ohjccr irscll. b 8'!c il a way ol dislinguishingit froln orhcr thrngsand ki rloid ntl krngth. ohteet nrturc i nd ct . nnjnr r c. r hr r on r hN \ r c\ 'r r , \ I n \ so 5l

I HT

OIALECIIC

OT IA'

OA' ICI

IH I

OIA LTC IIC

Of

IH E

OB "C I

ill
i

lruth, ihen, the ThinS uself rhar is wh;te, and .rh, cubical, 4hd rln, and so on (PS:73). ( ('nesponding lhis two-fold liw ofrh objcl. io there is a rwGlbld licw of the role oflhc subjccr.as eilher breakins up rhe unny ofrh obj!.crInro a ptumlny ofpropnier, or 6 hotding r oS er hcrrhlr p l u mtrry l o a u n i ry ra s H e g t puts In h..tfw e l @ k back on whar eonsciousness prcviouslyrook. and now tates. .esponsibility lor. on what rr preriouslylscnbed, and now asc.ibcs, ihe Thin8. wc ro see rhal coDsciousnrss atr.jmarety makls itsti as we as rh Thin8. both r pure.many-tcss 0r(, and into an ,{/so rhnr rcsotles nstf 'nlo rnro rndcp.ndcnt_mrncrs (PS: 74) At this srage.hilin8 to find any w.y to dccidc which way ol. vr.srng th. thrnSrs corccr and which dctusive.consciousness ndw a[nburcs horh uniry nnd diversity to thc objecr irscll rnd a cmpts ro rendcr thrs \res consrsrrntby rrcarin8 rhe manttbld prcptnrcs os Inessenlrrlibut bccduscrr is onty rhcsc propcni$ rhar disiinguishir from rnylhiDg elsc, uonscrousness tbrced to a.ln r rhat thcy xrc is nonethclcss nccessary rhe objecr.so rhc dirlincrion berwcencssenkr .Thas. tial and incssrntialhcrc Lollapscsr howe!er. is x d,slincrionrhlr is slill only nominattthc uncssenrirl. whrch is nonc rhc tcss supposcd lo bc ncccssary. crnecls ilscll out (PSi 76) llcScl rhercforcollcrs his dinSnosrs whar has gone wrurg of hcre.which. .s sc hr!c rtrridy pointcdour. tcuscs (,n thc ina.lcquxre concepoonol rhe calcgdn.s of unr\cr!,t,r)- and i ivjdurtity h(in8 ui'd by pcr.eprion:shrlc pcrcepl;onhns snne SrxsFdf rhc c.rcgory ol- univ c r s r l. i s a ne x trL n rc lh mi rc dc d n e c pri on.hi ehtredts l cF rt y w uni s at ! ! s s r Dpt r s c n s u o up R ' p c n yi n s trn c c \tj k c trhi te.{ D d.cuhrcat.: s tha hn\ lc(l ir lo rcduee oblecrr{)r ttLt tir\ ol uorctllcd nrrrihtrr!\. the s r r h ! ll lI ( c , r\e q u .n r(t,tl i c u tl l cl\h x r ti r!e t hrs nnat\\cdl I liI s r h ! o b t!e rrr ts ftrre tc t.r[,rrtc n .ss. (! i n the dcl cnrrr ' . 1. n. $ c \ q h i .h $ c rc { rp p r)s c (tr r( \tnurc \ e\\.D ri nt ng. n bci r \ t ) \ ( r ro n c tu s l!\ \u r.tv x \ rr $ .,{ rr rr5s!r\n} us bci ng.l i onr I \ c o{ r {\ c (rn t l .' r rh c t.\!t d l s .n \e -..n nrfl rr rumcdInr(} r ur r \ e' s .l J rr rl ( tc !c t o fp e .(.p l rn rl : bur rhi suni rersal!nee . 11. , 1\ t t ttt\ i t th !.rj t\u o u!. i s c s s .n ri d l ty rtnl by drkl i t. and hc n( e r \ n o l tru ty I s c tf-i d c n ti rau n i t.A nl i ry a . bul onc l dlllt ttll I nh dn tIIr^nn,1: for rhr\ reNon rhc trnilcKatrtv sptir\ 58

I I
I t

i
I

t
I
I

inlo thc extremes of singula. individuality and univcrsality. and the Also oflh li'eematters' inlo lh One of the propcnies, . . . The sophislry of pcrceptionsceks lo sve thcs moments to and it seks lay hold on the truih. by fiom thir contradicrion. distinguirhingthe av..tr. by slickinS 1()the Also alld lo the 'in so far'. and finally, by disringuishing the'unessential'aspccl to from an essnce which is opposed it. Bul thesei(pedienls. ofapprehensron. of insread *srding ofl dcccptionin thc process prcve$cmselveson lhc contmryto bc quite emptyi anil lhe lruth which is supposedro be won by lhis logic of thc perceptual proccssproves lo bc in one and thc same respectlhc oPPoslc a lol ilselll and thus to hale ar its essencc unilcnaliry which is de!oid of dislinclronsand deremrnaoons. ( PS:76 7) Thus. whul this seclion is mcdnl kt show. is thal ahhoughlhere is someadlancc in rnovins flom rhe ireducible Individualityofsenseccrtainty lo lhc inslances of prof'cny-univcrels rccognized by prrcepiion. this does not lakc us far cnoughl for. as lhe problems h) cnLuunrereJ N r(.prron hr\ , : r ct ealc, l.lr lh( l, , wc'rf on! {ir ion unc is nr can havcof the uni versal it s conncxonwilh lhc t ndr vr dull t his (Sl.: t:IL Faccd rxremal rel.tion ot ir as mcrcly ! conrmoncl|jnrenl wnh !n irrcs(nt.blc os.rllrlnn hct$..n l\to equlll! ur$lrsllclor,l rccouni sof l h.Thi ng as (h c r nd{s Aln) *hr . h hr s r csllt cdliot r l r l hi s conccpl rrrol thc unr!e Nxl,. onsciou\ ncssow r br ndonst hls onblogy. lnd lrkcs up inttLrd tht ont('l('!' ol li'rec - which is lh. lrom I'crccptroDlo r\ llcgcl rr.i lixus of thc

I I
i

force and the Underitandinq

In the Perccprrons.ctron. cohciorsncss hrs flilcd k, liM rrlionll $rlh its onloloSy saiisflclion in thc ordin!ry $orld ot comnt)n_sense. oi rhingsand p()pcnies. .s lhrs has led il inl() a dialeclit ol onc individual and mrny propcnrcs which il did nol have thc rcsourcesto lries ro get . rsdle. ln Forc. and lht UndcrstandinS cons.iousness onlt'logy, and round lhri drllicultv by sctrnr8 rrdc 59

I Hf

OIAIECTIC

O'

T HC OSIT CT

IH f

OIA IT(TIC

OT TH E OS J E C T

molrng to a mciapbysrcal piciure lbat rcplaces obJccts lhe ofordinary snse ex|ericncc wlth lhc very diflerent conceptionof the world prsntd us hy the n.tulal sciences. to wherethe manifcslimaSe'of thingsand piopenr$ is scr Nide in favour oflhe scicntilic ima8c' ol' lhc world liloured by physrcs. which this common-sens in onrolo8y is reiected(lo usc lhe Icrminologyof Sellars1963). Whcrc ludav wc might think oflhis scientificimaSein ierms otthc rudrcnlly rctr$onary metaphysrcs qulntum lheory. in Hegcl s of lrnt lhis scr(ntrli. conccptnnsrs centrcdon thenolronof force.whrch app(arcd l() oncn up, pr.lurc ol lhc world \ery difltrcni from lhal prcscnlcd l(r os bf sensccxFrience. Thc conceplol lbrce cnmc kl physics through the work of Newk,n. do'nlnalc cjghtccnrh-ccnlLrry $hrlc tl.!rtr! rptunnncnt rolc rn thelhotrSht ofDescancs,Lcrbnr/.and lirnl In trnr.uhr. Kanl \ dynamicalvrcs oimaner srs t.ke up br hchtc lnd S.hcllin8 and \o bccameincorpofuled into thc dc!clopmcnt ol the Nuhorrhilt'*\,hi! lphil'sophy ofnaturc) ofthc (icnnan idcalsts s { lbr 0 helpf ulh rs l o ri c rl o v c ^ ' i c w ,e el -u n rc re n99l ). In l i cw ofrh. l ccDtmlityof lhis conceplin mrkins possrhlc n.w prcrurc i ofrenlir).thll dcprned lrom thc iradir(nll onktoSy of nr{rcrial suhstances. hus it heenobseRcdrhlt'lilfonc $, nled lo chnmclcrizc Scncmlscienrilic thc lpnroach ol thc cifhleenlh-ccniury by me ns of I singlc conccpt. there sould hc nruchto bc siid lbr selcctrng noti()nof /i)/,i, lhc lT lhedi! er s nvo l c o rtc x t\s trh i n w h rc hrt w n \ b c i nst' ppl i cd ncl udc.l l fi . . r l. s s r c ll nr cc h a n i c s . u i dm c c h a n i c s . a gnel l smnd el ecl ri ci tt. D c hc uis t r y . br , l d g y a n d n rc d i c i n e a s $ c l l rs psychdl ogy. . cthi es. r c nh. t i. s r nd p h v s k l rh e o l o g yN c u s c rl r)t)1 l l rl .l ) l ) io$. h r\ d 6 .u s $ o r .l l i ,re c .l l e fe l \ r rti tudcr\ .hamcrrnr ' lr ( r ll\ nur n. nr ! l i ,r.$ h rl f h r 5 .c : h ,tr\ rr ,!r( \.n f thc n(ni on l i l e. . ol r \ r llr r elr \ ( . I r rh rr rr i t)f.,tr\ k , !c l (^ (r rh . af(!rr he.d b) thc !.f(c tl k n r (' l l h rn !\ rn (l | ,r' p . rl i c\. hr r| t) l ri cs t() \ ho$ h( { \ r hr \ ' \e r.o rrl l (In u S. r\ \.l r fro h l cnut| e_ \o l ar r\ rr nr (on.!.pt|(D.and \o oncc lrlc\ us n |rr .r\n! lionr lhc eonrmnr scnsc r S r in lc r ds r , , i t)o //l c c ,n rc .fi n n g d r\k l u rl ty and unr!$sal l y. l l e In lhus dinr n. . s h i n N C l r'n r)r l h c c o n tc N fu ry phi by)phi cl l enthul \i;rnn litr thL nol on ol li'r.c. trvlng to sho$ that it is not possiblenr sol\. our phrkNothrcrl drlli(trlt;cs sinrply bt mo\!n8 lionr rhc m.n! lc s rt o ihc s er c !rrrl irm rg c e

Hegelbeginsby bnngin8 our how tuming to thc scicntilicimaSe might appafto fepresnt advance consciousnessi no longcr an tbr we havc lo face the dialectic of one and rnany that appliedto things. as realrty is now conceivedof as an interconnecred whole of inlemally rclatcd forcesi In olher wordr, lhe "mattN" positedas indepndent direclly passovcr into rheir unity. and rheir unily dirctly unfolds irs diversity,and this once aSain icducesitscll to unity. tsut this move(PS:81) This inrerconnccrednessnor menl is wh is called l;ft. is visrblelo us diredly in thc world Bivento scnscexpencnce. where il appr:a6lhal rcalrtyconsislsofdislincl entirirsi but rhis pattcm is now lakcn by conscir'usness bc merelyrhe appcrrance lo ofa more holislic structure rnlcmally connccred of lbrces: t'rem rhrs we sec rhar rhe Notior ol Force bc.omcs ./.r!r/ lhroughns duplicntroninlo lwo titrccs, rnd how il eomcslo bc so. Thcsc tso Fb.ccs crlst as indepcndcntcsscncos: their but exislcn.c is r movcnrcnl of each ()wards lhe othcr. such thll their bcin8 is ralhcr ! purc/'drn./r.$ or a being lhul is /,{,rr../ nf an ,tr./: r.e.lhcir bemg hrs rcllly lhc signrtic,rnec shecr ofa tr/r'rrr8 . . ( onsequcnrly. lhcsc nr(nlenlsi.c nor dividcd inro two cr\trenrcs olTcrins.r(h othcr only xn oppositc ',xlcpendent cxtrenrc:lhcr. cssenccritthcrcon\rsl' ! rply !nd !)l.l)' in this. thl l .!.h,\ $l cl y thn,!8h r hc or hcr .! t r d Nhr t cieh llnls is r t rnrnrcdrrtcl y l onS cri s. sinc. n , \ llu or ht i [ hc' har e lhus. no In l :!cl .no srbsti nccsol lhcir o*i {hi. h nr ght sLr ppoiand nrai nkrnthtm . .' l ' hus t hc t r ulh or 'lor ( . r ct r u, nsdr l! t hc rhxr.(rr ol rtr rlte nlonr t\ .l ih rctuhl\. thcrr {rhn!n..s snd th.; nx\cnN )t. col l nts. nr le$\ liD8l) r ( r nn undr lliJenliit L{ unil) l his lrue c\\cD!. ol Th rgs hrs nos lhc chrftctcr ol not 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.as rhe 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. accordinglo the scicnrilic rhcorist.consciousnesr .annot lind rut'on.l salislictNn rf n dcals wirh the world as prcscnrcdto us bv scnsc expeneneei howc!cr. rl i.eaisthrl $orld rs a nr.rc lmcrrincc. rl, 61

60

HE D A L E C I

C Of

IHE

OSIT CT

TH

D IA LE C TIC

OF TH E OA ]E C T

I
62

and insteadthinks in terms of the more holistic notion of lbrcc as underlying thar amer.lnce, rhen (rhe theorisrclaims) a way can be found to ovc.comc thc orehany probtem rhat ilced pcrception: 'Wirhin rhis trr.f r?rr . . . theabsotute t t.rsd t . . has beenpu.8ed M ot the antith.,.\i\ bctwccn lhe unrverMt and rhc indilidual and has bccomcrhc objccl ol thc Unlerturdins tps A7). llowcver. consciousness d'sco!ersrh.i pricc nrullbe paid rhen il rr r cmpts r{) lserll. thc puzztesthrt rris. out ot-our ordrnrry conectlron ol rhc $orld hy m)t]rng to the l{.o trca tlc* ldopted by lhc s . r c nt r lie c o n s r ' l h c i n n e rw o rl d i \. ti ,r conscousness. a lh sti hecrusceonsciousress do.s nol ycr Und nsel in it. Ir is /rr1,^4,,,1 r,r,f,^. lar rt i\ nrcrLlythc norhingness apperrancc. of and posiri\ety t ht \ ir y ) h, t \ t Lri h u t u n i v rrs a t(PS :8 8 ) Ih c d i l l i cul t), Itcgetpresscs r s a linr ilir r on .: rl l h o u Sh ]o l i n g fro ' n l h e m a nl tesr thc sci enrrl j e n k, inlrgc nrry hclp us escdp.rhe aporir ofpercetrion. the bifurcationIn our *odd{ ic w rh i se n h i l s c .e a rc \{ s m a n } p robtcms n sot\cs.a, as oncc wc go bekrwthe le\cl ofcmpiricrt phenomenx. becomes ir hrrder lo deicnd the chim thrr we hr\e cognilivc access this undcrtyiug to rcalrly.or lo kno$ what $e cin sdtraboul il: il rhuj bc(onNs ir 'supcr s c ns ihle y on d . o u rs i d c e rc rc h o fo u r i n l c ltecruat crs Thus. bc rh pow sccmsthnt the scienlilictheorin clD.ot givc us qroundsinr raking 't pr c t ur e h' s ol- t h ew o rl d s c ri o u s ty n a n o n l o togi .at nrof!i e!!. fo poi unlesshe can Si!c Srounds tating this piclure k) bc lruci bul ho$ for carr tuch grounds hc gilerr. $hcn we h.\c sone bcyond rhe djr.cr c \ nl. ' c c of lhe \c n s c s l A l lhr s po rn l ,rh . u .d e rs rrn d i n g tc mtrs r,, rcndcrrhi \ \ufcl ll \ c r s bt c r c r t r r t c s sn rv \l rrr(,!sh ). (l c fri l _ \rn g t N i l h rhc l N si rhat i ! ( \ c nr r hcr r t urx l th l rrn n .rr. $ h re hh o rhn rfd r ho!r l hc phcnonrcna r n( l I e r r \ r I ir ix t.(l rtrth c n r ' (i n l s c !!.n rl \. l h e \r/,f/r.r,i 6t.,$ortd L\r r Lnc r,l , ?r r ,t l /r I $ h i c h .rh trrg hb c v o n d f.rc.i ved $ortd thc li) r r hi\ c \ hibr t \ h s o n h rh (rrg h i n c .s s a n l .h rrg. rscqua yt,r5.r/ I n il , ! i( i r s ils ( l rrc .ttrrn q rrl Imrs c Ih r\ rc rtn ro1-ta$.s i ndecdrhc is l r ut h lit r r hc t nd r,\rrrtl i tr!,rn (t th x t rn n h h rs i t s,,ak), i n thc trq. (P S :90 l) llegcl scc\ drrliculricshcrc. howcler t'trsr, he arguesthat on rhrs conccttronot hs_ rt is naturattar rhc undersrdnding look tbr to s onr cwa) 01 un ri _ y i n[s l r$ s i n to a u n i ti .d rheoryibut. .w hcn thr g

lawslhus coincidc,lhcy lose lheir specillccharacrcr. The law bccomcs more and morc suprficid. a.d as a rcsult what is found is. in tacl. nol lhe unity ofrr4e rpe(ir.laws. bul a law which leavcsour their specilic (P characrea S :91). In orher wo. ds, in becom ingunif icdlhe hws becomemo.e general.and in becomingmore generalthey losc lhcir npplicabilityto the concreteworld. Sccond.he arguesth rn undcF standing of lhc world in tenns of laws is incomplete.becauscit providesno rnswer lo thc questionofshy thesc laws obtain. when ir appearsthl|l thc unilcrse could hale obeyedother laws: Bur 1n all rheselbnns lol lawl. necessityhls sfiown fiself to bc only an empiy w ord (P S :9:l ) Thi rd. he cl ar nr shalwhile lalvsm a) hclpus io t hink r about pbenomena generallerms.thcy describeraiherthan propcrll in cxpl ai n: Thc si D gl c occurrence lighhins.e. s. .is apt r ehended r ol !s uni l crsrl ,dndl hi s uni vcrsals enunciat ed lhc / d! of elecr r icilyi he i as r ' ' cxpl l nari onthcncondcnsclhe / dn. jnloFr 11, as t hc cssence lhc s ol law ln this tluldoAierl movcmcnr.the tjndcrsrxnding, we hale as seeD. srlcks to lhe Inerl unily of thc obiect. and lhe molcmcnt falls onl y w i thi n rl re tl ndcrsrand ing r lseli not wir hin t he ohjccl.ll is ar cxphnnton lhal nol only explains nothing. but is so obrrurs If/dJ thal. whilc il p.ercnds sxy somelhrng lo dillircnr fol whrt hrs already beensui d,rcrl l y srys nothi rSr r all hur . nly r cpcnr shc sNn) ehing' t r (P S 9:l 5. l l rnsl rron nul i l i ed ; ci: SL: . l5r i 9) . llcr e. r gr r n. ir scem s that l he l a$s ol thc l rn(l c.\(r nding not r . kc u\ r r ueh hclond t he do rcrlnr ol rpNaflrn.. .rd !, se rre lcli qrth rhr *o.l(l ol lbrccs as d myncrnn' s beyond-. Ihus. sl'cr . . i r hcundcNlr nding begln r it h I concctl i (nr l orccsrnd h$s r \ t r r t er s{ls ut r ddl) 1r gr he par t r culr r of obicctsrs lhcy rpperr lo us. il no$ \ccs that t!rlhout thc f.rtrcularity ol errprnerlfhcnonrcna. r . {ould be no eonr enr ( ) our r alk ot ' rhc t generaluN sii l s cl .rn' r,) h!!c esr r bhslr . dhr pnonly ol unilcr salil) l t 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 1n)nl dhlotluht of undernnnding s ^dtu 'lwo-lici concctli(nr of rcrln). Hegel hud liAl uscd thc term 1n hrs fnrroductroD the a)-rn?r|Jaumd ol Phtb\a \ in lliol. where he to comhent\ lhlt in ils esotcric larm, in rts relationshipto commonsensehe w orl d ol phrl osophy in dnd lbr ir sell- an l is invcnedwo d' (C J1: :81) l l l s di scussi on th e inwdcd wor ld in t helh. n'n. r dollr ol 61

THE D A L E C T I C O f

IHF

OB]ECI

OF TH E OS IE C T

is linked into his previousdccounrs lbrce md law in a way thar is of cxrremelyhard 1o lbllowi bul rhe ge.eral pornt seems be that once 10 the undcrslanding positsa superscnsible world overand abovcrhe one apparent to ordinary experience,ir then becomes very hard for conscrousncss s.y shat the world is really like'in ilself: ro LookedNl sufErlicially.this invc.tedworld is the oppositcofthe lirsl rn thc sens.thrr it hasthc hxcr oulsideofil and repclsrhat world liom ilscli !s in\ened kttdl wtl.l: thal lhc onc is ^n rppc'rftoc.. but thc othcr the in-ilsell: thrr the one is the world rs it is tilr rn olhcr, $hcrcas the other is lhc world as it rs tor r r s c ll S o r h i rt r u s cth c p rc !i o u se ra m p l e s, k shrr tdnessw eeti s t u\ h, ot t t n \ i n th e th i D g ,s o u r:o r s hat i s north pol e i n llre rclull n[gner in lhe \,,orld of appc.rancc. would bc $uth polc in thc trkl at r.\\|,rtirl hlirgt whrt prescnls ilsclf rs oxlsc pole in lhc phenonrenon elcctricilywotrldbe hydroscn ol polc in unma n rl i s l cc l c c tri c i ty d (P S :97 8) ln turning liom thc mrnil-cst the scientilicim{gc. consciousness,rs to undcrstrndrn! has rherclb.c fnilcd to altain ftlional sdtisfacrlon: b) conccivingof the scjentilicimrgc as a simple negrlion of the manit-esl imagc, dll rhar crn be ascnbcd1othc innea (and lruc ) world is theoppos it e wh rtc v e rw e p e rc c i \c n o n co fw h l chhel ps 10undcF of , us n. nd or ex phin w h l t w c p e rc e i !e . l{ egc lendsth i s s c c ti o n y a d o p rrn gh e n Nndpoi n( l he w e' b l oi (rs f h. r onr c nok rg i c a lb s c n .rs ). l l i n gu s th a rl r om thi s standpoi nr. o te rh cdur liir ol r h. tl i d c rs l !n d i n 8 N nh . o !c .c ,m e drrl c.ti crl tyi n the c (r' c et l ol lhc r r y' rt.: t(n n l h c i d .r. Ih .r. o l i r!c rtron.\Lhi ch consti tur c s hc c s s ( nt r rl r rrto r. o l o c rs l l c .t o l rh f s u p crse srbl cw orl d.w e n rt r srl l, , ir r r r e t h. s c n s u o ud c l l { ' l l i \i n S th c d i i i i Jcnces a di tturcnt s in su s t x r r ing lc ilc n t .. l h u s th c s !rp e r\c n s rbsorl d. w hi ch rs rhe c le !r \ c r lc d { dr ld. hr\ rl rh c s rn rctrn N r^ c fu re h c dhc otherw orl d and t h a sir \ ir hin r lt it i \ /,, i /n ,// th c In l c rt.d w o rl d ,i.e.l bc i nveni onol i ts ell:r t is ils . ll N n drh r ()tp o s i tcn o n c u n rty Onl y l hus i s i l di i l eF i enceas t,x!/ dilliidrcc, (tr dilt!'rence,r rr o!, rc//. or dilie.cnce .s (PS 98 9) ll.gcl erpl ins thxr fronr this perspectilc.thc rn irrrll problemsrhal irriscIi,r lhc Understandrng rcrlly pseudo-problems, are 64

I t

as they do not apply to the infinne so conceir'ed:Accordingly.we do not needto ask the queslion.still lessto think thar fretting ovcr such aquestjonis philosophy, orelen thal il is aquestionphilosophycannor answcr.rhe question.viz. Hor'. ftotr. lhis pure essence. how docs differcnceo. otheness ri{ls /o4, from il']" Fb. the division inlo t$'o momnt! h$ ahcady taken place. ditTerence excluded from the is sell-identrcal and sct apart from ii. W}al was supposed be rh r?4: to idcrrli.l/ rs lbus alradyonc ot thesetwo momenls insteadof being the absoluteessence (PS: 100). flere. rhen. we hare a dialecrical struclurc of identity-in-diilerencc, whcrc thc inlinite is not disrincl from lhc iinitc, but.ather contarns linire wirhin it {ct EL: {942. lhc pp. 137 8). As llcsel makesclear.ho$evcr, consciousness tjndeF is (andrng is nol yet reddy to gr.sp the conccpl ol lhe inEnitc in rhis way. and so is cut oll- f.on this resolut;onol ils dilllcuhics: ln the coDtrarylarf. rs the invc.sion of the linl law. or in thc inncr dittcrcncc. it is tnrc rhat rnfinittr irsclt beconresthe ,ila1 of the Undcrnindingi but onceagainthe Understanding falls shortof inlinily ns such. sincc il lgrin apponionslo lwo worlds. or b two suhstanl i al el enl ents. w hi ch i s r diliar ence r lsell t hc scll r cpulsion thal in ofthe sel r' same and rhc scl fdr lr acr nnof t hc unlk! ( PS: l0l l) . U nabl e grasp ,r i tscl lthi sR )lur i( ! k) it s dilli. ulr i to ti r musl l ook l i r srl i sl i ctrorr rr ot hcr sr v. r s n no l( gcr r ppcar s l rn r can l i nd i rl .l l ..tuxl hxnnon)' wilh r he w( nl( 1. dnd so N. hic\ t what il rvhi (h i \ secks. , , 1 iG ell r r , r \ t n|cn) cs\ ' ll, S l0l) ,,i , knos thrs rs fossi hl c.( ee o\ er conr cs onr Lls sj del l ness. bul rl rs onl ! l , r \ r hr l lh, s lr r LI he\ r slr . not ) . 1 Lr (P conscrousi e\i S 102) Thrs. i tr rhc ,,pcr)ig ehrtt e. ol r h. / , r . r , &2/ 1djaf . t lcSclhas sk)w n how l urdrnrenrl lfrcl ath! sr cr L nd cpr st . nr okuleal blcnr s r pnr ansc ktr conscusncss hccrusc ol rhc wals in which has so lirr concci \edof l hc rcl .l i (nrbet$ cct r n! ! er sr lsand indi\ idu|ls.1lc8el has lricd ro dcnn,nslrrtcthat non. ol rhcserla)rs is rdcqu!tc. !s cach l eads conscl ousnessoccrl ri nlir ndxm cnr al. lpor ia\ .t hr t som cnc$ rnl so c,,nrftr, d o' l ' < ' ( (r' (!,{ (. I r . Nr bcr i'ur Jr l c n\ r iu\ r ( \ , r \ r u rcrch 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. Nsthis is lhc toh ol lhe 1.,gn' fttr which lhis cntr.al 65

TH E OIA LE C T

C OF TH E OS IE C T

discussion supposed prcplfc it: all thc l'r.ron.rdloA]. is meanl is 1o perception. ro shoq is lh3t thc oplronsexempli{ied sense-ceriainty. by a nd r he under \ r J n d i nh a \c fd l e d . s o rh a tc o n s c i ou\n$s e musrr.m( ro a new way of thinking if lhese problemalicstandpoints to be are aloided. Put very bdefiy: Hegel a.gues in the hglc thal whal is rcquircdis a subsrancc-kind conccplionoflhc unilcrsal,suchas 'man' or'horsc'. which cscrpesthe ont/mnny problcm by btins a ri,a/r, propcrly ol-the rndrvdual tnken as a Lrnitied essential entity. so thnl is In b propedy' uni versah. l he indiv idual n c rrh rr.r e rc u n d l eo l d 1 !e rs e nor a harequality-lcsssubnratunrthis conccplionis then sullicienl to securelhc conrm)n'scns.ontologyof objccls withoul recourse the to tw o lic r pr c lur co l th c U n d c 6 ti n d i n g ((f. PS :1 9, Thc uni vcrsdls . i n ol nr c r nl lo h! !c m e rc l yth c s i g n i l i c a n c o l r predi cal e. i fthc e as pr()poslion rsserledonly thal lhe acrurl is unilcrsal; on lhe conlrary. rhe unirersal is ineant to c\press the essence lhc actual. C l also ol Sl-: .ltr 7. IE]ach humanbc'ng rhoughlnlinitcly uniqlrcrs so primarily becrusehc is . ,,2,. and eachindi!idual animal is suchan individual p r inu. ily bc c r us ct i s i n rn i n ri l : i fl h i s i s tru c .l h cn t soul d bc i mpos i i siblc r o s r y whr t s u c hrn i n d i l i d u rl c o u l d s ri l l bc i f thi s founddti on were remolcd. no lnrtrcr how richly endowedthc in(hvidualnight bc jl: wnh other predrcales, lhat rs. lhrs lbundalioncan eqLrally callcd bc llnher discus{on ol Hegel s positrvc a predicalelike lhe olhers F_or posit;on.sec Sl.nr l99l).)

' ''

somc beyond.or somc law likc gcncralizalion. the scll'conscious bul acl i vi tyof rhe undcrsundi ngl self ( Pippin1989: ll9) . This m akcs i the lransilionliom object to subjecleasyro explain:as thc objccrtums out to b'construcled by the sub.ject. is nalural lhat we shouldnow it tum from the tbmrer to the larier.and so move from consciousncss lo sclf-consciousness. difliculty. however,is thal rhis readinealigns Thc llescl soutlook closcly lo Kanl's (a fact Pippinhappily acknowledBes: cf. Pippin 1989: lll. whcre hc chaructcnzcs chrptcr on torce as thc 'the lirsr and mort sisnillclnt sl|se in lescl sl phcnomcnolosical justllicalion of rdealism). This makes thrs reading ol the klnsilion conlenlious,as thrs Kanrian lreathcnl ol llcgel is nol universrlly acccptcd(.1. sr$n 1990,wrnenberg 199.1. R \ltslphal 191]9. K K. R . \l enphN l 199]N ) Morcov.r.cvcn if il is r igf il lhat t lcgcl s cldim lhrl !1 this point thc UndeAtandirscxpcricn.csonly i/r.1/ shouldb. l l ken rn I K l nl i l n sfi ri l (w hi ch on d m t r c r cr list r clding is highly conl cnl i uN ).l rs hi k, scc l h r l lhis cxplains he t r unsiliono sclf i t t rb...rs w e hatc secn.al lhis poinl lle- {cl ir adopr ing consc;ousress: th. sl.ndfoint ol lhe !!c as phenorrcnologlcal obsf^cr. and not of ' U ndcA trndi ns c\p.ri cnccr only t v, / / '. his im pli. r t ion \ ould sc. m Io bc th!l eon\chusnc\sl scl l d ocsnol ll lhis ir n) . I hcn t he t t unsi i l ron l ronl eonsei ounrc\\ ) \cl l -e, ! r \ ei1{r {r c\(\r nr ol hc c\ f hincd in l{ r: K anl l t' rt.i ,ri s. r,erl i /rri od rl , , , , ! r , , \ a( \ \ r l r r r n', , . ho$ Jcr er mi rcs rh. N orl d A morcrcutrl rerdi rg s |lN! b1. . ht t r l. ! . r . $hf r e $h. r t r nd. r pi ns l fi c l rrnsrl i (nrl orr eon' cr or J. " r ( , \ . l. r n\ . n, 1, \ f . \ \ i\ n. t r l shi l i Ironrrc.l j snrl () i dcrl r\n. bur lir nn / t u1, 1 t ( )/ ) f u r , r '. $hcr c in l hcor/i fg \e hr\c a (l cl .(he(l \ r . \ , ) r 'lh( wor ld. r nd so r bslr r cl l i orr our fonl ur r\ suhj ecl \ r heNr l( 1. ,, $her cr sr n n! ! et ie! lr clr vr ly $c rcr,, n' c w orl d and \t) nur ( \ , acl! . s r \ \ ubiccr s r heccnr r col' ir l hrngs (( r K oti \c 1969:l 7 S Sr . xlm llxr is 1997: . I l0lr 'Thus. I a nc$ j oufl rc)strns hrrc th. tr r . r i. r l r dr r n. \ of s. ll: . ons. iousn. ss th!t hrs thcorcti .N l l y--scr i tscll on onc sidc. ) . llcgcl licqucnt ly conl tusl s l heorrl real frrc lr cr l r lt iludesin t hcse cm r s( c1lLA: thc rrxl t L pp. l l l 11,FN : I. .sl l 15 7. pr '. 195 205) .whcr cin t hc r hcor er r ell se whilc in r het r ucr icr lone sc atri tudc hur. our i bcuson rh eobiecl, subordinrtellc ohic.l ro thc \rbi.ct: rl $c arc suppos.d to turlc

The tranrition to Self-con5ciournelt

l [ \ , ng c or r c lh, : ri r. IIe 8 e l i r o n rh e l h re s h o kl nn,!rng]nb hrs ol d r \ r r s s r r r or s c ll -.d i \rn )r^ n c \\.trh e rurh . ri ' e n s !i tehc\ l i on hos * rons . ior s ' c s \ . ( r' rc rr.s o t rh l n l s i n th r \o d .l (' hos i t conccrte\ ' ol rt s c llqur { r ht . . t . l r rs n o l .n l l rc l ! .l .i f. h o $ c rc r .how l hi s trrnsrl i on l ionr lhc ( lr r l. ( l r( o l l h e o h rc c l k , l h c d i N l c cl i c l hc subi ccti s ol s'ptoscd ro eonrerhour. ( t ' or ' . r c r(l i ,i g(c .8 . I' ,tp rn l ' )n ' ): l .l l .1 :. R ocLmorel t)97: i 5 6 ll. S t c $r n lll0 0 : 5 t).' )' ) l l l ]). th rsl ra D s i l i rns to be undersl ood in cs s enlr r lly r nlir n l $ n i s . rr rh .t w h rt h N p F n \ .ti er the apori a the K 01 in!crtcd world i\ thrl eonsci(rsn.sscomcsk) accctt thNt Ltlhecssenc. ()l o f lt per r unc c s . h ( o ri Si n th c u n i tyrn d o rd c ro i!tpe{.!nccs. i s nol t 66

I ] '

IH E

DI A L F ( T I C

O F T HE OSIECT

OT TH E Os IFC T

betweenthesetwo attitudes lhis poiot of the Prercnenolop, this al (which, lik lhe lhowould thenexplain the shift from consciousnss (which.like retical anitude,;s object-orie ated) to self-consciousness rhe pracricalafirtude.rs subiecr-orientaredl. It cenainly seems thal it is the theorticalattitude that has prcdominated the 'Forceand the Underslanding' in section,and which ofthe invnedworld. is apparently broughtto griefwith the discussion Hegel s characterization ofthe theorcticalattitudein the lntroduclion to th second pan of he En.rclopedia lh;s Philosophy ol Nature) parallelsthe dialcctic oflhe PhenonenoloKrthus f^r, and helps shed some lighr upon il: In the theorcticalapproach(u) thc initid lactor is our withdrawing from nllural things. lerling rhem as they are. and adjusting lo them. In doing thrs we slan liom ou. senseknowledgeofnarure. Il phyrics were basdonly on perceptions were nothing but lhc evidenccoflhe howeler, and perceptions senses, activity of. natural scicntin would consistonly of the secinS,smclling, hcarins,clc.. so that animals $'ould also be physicists. . . (b) In rhc secondrelation of things 1()us. lhey cithcr ncquire thc determinarion unrversalitytbr us. or we of hnsform lhem inlo something universal.The mo.e thoughl predominales ordinarypercepiiveness. muchthe morc does in so the nanrralness, indi!iduality. and immcdilcy of rhings vdnish .way. As thoughtsinlNdc thc limirlcss multiformity of nalure. ils richncssis impovcnshed. springlimesdic, and there is a irs t r J , nt r n r h( D L Du l i ri (u l ,,u r. T h d r$ h i (l ' i I nu L,i $a\ r!i ' ) - r r f l- lr r . - . A l l . , l ,1 I In rh ( q u rrJ J r,' l rh ' .u !hr: s.nr dhLI I. i . i w dx nc e.$hr . h s h u p c drs c l l i n r(J rh o u s rn dn tri gui ng ondc.s, sithcrs int,) !rid li)rnrs rnd shrpclcss gcncrdlitics, which rcscNhlc ! dull nonhcnr li)g lc) thth thcsedelcrminalions are opposcdlo both trrctiell oncs. rnd sc rlso lind that the theoretieal!fp(,rch rs in$rftlly sell-contradiclory. it appears.to lbr bring aboul lhc prcciscopposileol whal ii intends We want lo know the nrturc ihat really is, nol somethingwhich is not, but instead lea!ing n !k)nc .nd .cccptinSil as it is in trulh, insteld of of lakin8 it {s gilen. wc mrkc $nrcthing complelclydifferent

oul of it . . . The theoretical approach begins by chckins appelil, is disinleresld. leaves it it rhingsto subsist rheirown in way, and thus immediarelydisplays rwo aspects. subject and object,the separalion ofwhich is fixedon this sidandthat.Our aim is rather !o Srasp and comprchend .arure however, to make it ouB, so that i! is not somelhingbeyondand alien to us. (EN: I, 1246,2, pp. 197 8) Much as he dosin the Prenoneholop. Hegelhe.e po.traysrhe theoretical attitudeas a 'srcpping back frorn practical engagcnen!wirh the world, in a way lhat scts the subjectto one sider as n resuh,lhe world as the subjcctcxperiences is lost. and is replaced lhe scienit by tifrc image put forward by the theorisl. in a search for greater 'objectivity . The lcsson ol the 'invened world . however. is that then consciousness comeslo feel that lhe natureofreality is ungmspsgEqation occu6 bet\cen the able, and a. apparentlyinsuperable the objccl. F.ced wilh rhis brclkdown. consciousness natu>ubject.rnd '_rally recoils from lhe theorericalatirude. and moles over 1() its opposire.the praclical atrilude. Here the engagemenr lhe subjecl of walhlhe obieclis much more direct.as the subieclonceagainbecomes a bei!8-1r$e udu Dotjust a disinlcre(ed spccl.lor d/ it. so that lhe -wo.ld regainsits colou. oncc morc.Thus. thc tmnsition hc.c is what one miShr expccrfrom thc Phorrnotu'lo\t n fn/ ,(idli,d: hrlrn8 ^s found that the scicnlilic lhcorist s nosrtrcnhas cnded in incoherence by alremptinglo lies the $orld rn ahslraction lrom ho$ rt appeanl() now secsthe world as someus as subjectswilhrn il. eonsek)osnesr thrng rhat the sublecrcrn cngrgc wrth dirc.lly through ils practic.l rel ari on i r. as nothi rghul r \ch iel. lir r ils scli cxpr cssion. ro Now. in thc /'iil.,n{)h ,/,\drk, llcgel nrnkcsclerr lhdl thc p.aclical rttiludc cdn rlso bc dclel()pcdone-sidcdly. consciousncss as no* seckslo mastea rhe naruflrl \,,orld (F.N: l. N2452,pp. 195 6). Likewise. in rhe Pr.'o,r(,,r,$ Hegel concludesthe (onsciousness wilh t het wo- lier! iew of r ealny chapl er w ami ngthal i n di spen sing by may find thdl it has adopledby the theorelicrl attitrde, consciousncss moved oler loo quickly to a sublcct-ccnlrcd conccption.in which it atlcmpls to lrivc !1 J./lrrrtnurnerr. r rcfleclednes$inlo{ell conscious irsclf in ils olhemess (PS: 102): of

T HT

DI A I E C T I C

O'

T H O3 ]ECT

Ir is manifest rhat bhind the so-.alld cunain which is supposed to conceal th inner *orld, there is nothing to be seen unless we go bchind il ounelves, a! much in ordr thal we may see,as thal there may b somthing bhind there which can bc sen. But at the sarn tim it is evidenl that we cannol without morc ado go straightaway behind apparance.For this kno*lcdge of whal is the truth of appearanceas ordinarily conceived. and of its inner bein8, is itself only a rcsult of a conplex movementwhereby 'meaning, perceiving, and the the modes of consciousness Undershndins. vanish: and it will be equally vidnt that thc cognition of shat enstiou\ne!! kno$ in knoving itself, theexposilionofwhich requiresastill morecomplexmovement. is containedin what follows. l 0l ) to this complex movmenl lhat H8el now proceeds lrace out.

chepte.

The dialectic of the subject

lPhenomenology, B. Self-Consciousnes,)

i11r li;I

:1,u,,,,1, ::,
ltiriiil,

Mastership and srvitude

With the brcakdownofconsciousnss, the collapse and of its purely objecl-centred theoretical attilude.we now move 1o sclf-consciousness. which takes up the opposings|ance. placing the subjcct!l thc ccntrc of by thinSs.As one might expecl, Ilegel wanlslo show thrt botb atiitudes one-sidcd:pul srmply,consciousness are was one'sidedbecause ded io displaceitsell liom n the wodd and take up a purely obje.tive stance.while seli-(onsciousnc\si' onc iiJcd bLc.d,! rl lries to impose itself on lhc world kn sr.ongly. so thc selflworld dislinctioncolhpses and srlf-consciousncss is reducedto the mononlessiaulology of: I am I"' (PS: 105).Hegelselsoul lhe problemherequile clearly in the discussion self-consc of iousness ihe third part in of rh. Encf.lopedia (the Philoe\)ht' 01 Spnft)l In consciousness, see the iremendous we ..U,Ierez.e, on the one side, of the '1 , this wholly s/u//e existencc.and on lhe other side, of the

TI I E O I A L E C T I C

O F T HE ' UB]ECI

IH F

D IA LE C IIC

OF IH E

S U S IE C T

ofthe'I andthe infinite variet oflhe world.It isthis opposition worid which has not yt reacheda gcnuinemdialion,thal conon slihrtesthe linilude ofconsciousness. Self-consciousness. the oiher hand,has its finitudein its still quite absrracr self-idenrity. Whal is presenlin the I = | of immediateself-consciousness is ro be, not yer a posited ot actuol a dilTerence thar !gs\,g'4A!t (ES: 9425,2. 166) p.

individual. does not count for rnuch. Self-consciousness therefore (cf. conceivesof ilself as more than a merely animal consciousness P S : 108 9). Desirc

Once the subjecthasmoved to lhe level offocusing on ilselfqua individual. so thal n has itselfas a pure "l'for object (PS: 109),Hegcl now selsoul 1oshow that il is no more possiblefo. thc subjcctto find of Hegel attempls1() As with his prcviousdiscussion consciousncss, satisfactionin irs p.actical relation to lhe world if it lries to do so by bring out the one'sidedness selt"consciousness showing thar il of in 'immediatly'than it was for ir to 6nd satisfaction ils theorelical cannol properly rcsol!e thc dialeclic of universaland indi!idual. nol relationto the world through thr simplisriomodel of serse-cenainty. this limc in rchtion to the object. but in relalion lo itself as {rrrc./. At its mosr basic.thi!_[gctical relationtakes the fbrm of .16rie, itr and lhe conccptionil hasof its own identiry. which the subjclexens nselfas a kind ofpure will. where nry snsc Ha!ing iniroduced thc turn f.om consciousnrssto selfby ofthe ofeslrangenentfrom the world is countered the destruclion consciousness. Hegel feels able ro move from the 'arid forms and in obj;cl. and !o by a negationofils orhcmess a lilcralsense: Cerlain generalilresofthe theoretical shapeless attitudewhich concludedhis ofthis othcr, it cxplicitly afnrms that this nothingofthe nothingness d i s c us s ionof c o n s c i o u s n e s s .to a c o n c e p ti o nol nal urethal i sonceagai n nessis.r/ jr lhc truth oflhe otheri it desrroys rndependent the objeci 'noisy with life (LN: I. $2462. p. 198).Thus, as sell-consciousness and the.eby gives itself the cenainty of nself as a rrrc certainty.a with the wo.ld at the lcvel ofdesire (as a p.a.beginsby interacting ilsclfi, d, cenaintywhich hasbecomeexplicit lo. selt"consciousness it ttral mther lhan theoretical attitude), findsthe 'dull nonhem fog' has ohje.lire ntnnq \PS: 109).Thus. wiih desirerhc subjccrlltcmpts ro Iined to reve.rlx world leemingwith lj!rng things: presene its individualiry by neSatinslhc wo.ld around ir. The difilculty with desire.howevcr. is thar it inlohes thc deslruclionof ihe Bur /,r rr. or r,l tr!.//. the objecr which ibr scll:consciousncss object. bur oncelhis object is denrcycd. thc subiecthas noth'ng over is the negalive elemenrhas. on iis side. returned into ihcll which to cxcd ils contrcl lnd so demonstrale ihd'viduality. Tbe its !s on the other srdeconsciousness done.Through lhis has , lusl subjccl musl therelirre lind ilscll anolhcr dbtecl lo destroy.so lhc rcdccrion inro irsclf thc object has becorrleLrlc. Whal sellpr,r($ (rr b(E rn dl J,n. l (.,Jr nt r o r n oh\ iouJ) um pl) r ( 8r As. frorn itsclfrs hxling nrrr8. also has i (ons.i(Nsrcssdislinguishcs ' D e' rr( anJ rhe .' h r . , r nJLl ir . .Br Jlr li( dlr on. ( ( und, - Y"'f ' rn dr In ir. In so lar rs il is posiledas b.urg. not Drcrcl! lhc charuclcr -(l r' -crnJrnr) this rioned by rhe obiect, li,r scll:ccnlinty comcs liom superscding ol s.nsc-ccturnlyand percepnon. il r\ heingthal is redected but other: in orde. thal this supersession takeplace,lheremusl be this cln irro rtscll: lnd rhe objectol rnnncdirlc derrrc is a /nrra,,rr8. othc.. Thus self-consciorlsncss. ils negaliverelationto the object. by {P S : 106) of is uDdblero supersede n rs rc.tlly because that relationthlt il i1i llcgel gocson (, !r88c( lhrl scll-cooscnnrsrcss cannolbe cen.in ol producesthe obJeclagain. and ihe desireas well (PS: 109). i rs c lf by s im ply rd c n l i i y i n s l s e l l w rl h rh i s s o r l d of | \i ng thi ngs. i A1 this point. Hegel otlers one of his charactcrislic preliews'. fbr in that world lhc.c lppclrs to bc t(xi liltlc room for .lny nolion where he rells us how ultimately rhc dimcully fitcdby desirewill be ol individualilyr whal maltersat the lclel of lile is the aerrs. nol This willhappen whcn lhc singleself-conscrousness the sees resolved. the parlicular indivldual, so thal al rhis 1evcl.the l. as a particuld. wodd as conrainingorrel sell-consciousnessesi if, seeinSthat lbr

!
OF THF ' USIT CT TH T D IA LE C T]C OF TI]E S U 3]E C I

othersare selvslike it, and in therebyrecognizing itself in them. the whereonly by ngat;n8 subjectis no longer iiicedby sheerothemess, the world can the subjct 6nd itself in it. As Hegel makes clear. qhen rhe .lf-con'cio'\ q'bjecr i. ahr- h s r:qLfiltlc othe' . wc q r ll ha\ c dr i\ ed d r r tl c c b i v c tu m i n s -p o i n rin rhL' j oumey ot consciousness fhroushthe PhetunenoloKt. aftet which consciousness will b capable ot a much mor balancedoullook lhan has been achievedhilheno: A sclf-conschrsncss. bcing an objecl. isjust as much'l as in 'object. Wilh rhis. $e aheady have belbre us the Notion of is &,,/. Whal slill lies aheadibr conscioushess rhe experience ofwhat Spirit is this absolute substancc which is the unity of thc diil'c.ent indcpcndent selfcorsciousncsscs which. in thcir opposilion.cnloy pcfccl frccdom!nd independence: l lhrl lhe is We and the We lhar is l . lr is in srll--consciousness,rhe in Notion of Spirit, thal conscrousness firsl finds its lumingpoint, where ir leaves behindil lhe colourtul show olthe sensuous here-and-now and the nightlike void of the supeBensible bcyond.and ncps out into thc spiriturl daylightofthc prcscnt. (P S : l l 0 l l ) Al the beginningollhe seclionlhal follows this passage, eDtitled 'lndcpcndenccand Dcpcndcn.c of Sclf Consciousncss: Maslcrship d ndS c niludc . lle g c l c o n ti n u cw i th h i s p rc !i e w , spcl l i ng w h.l s out th is nr ut ull r ec osn i ri o in v o l l c s(PS : I l l l :) L s senri al l y. n cnchsel fcon\ci()usness nnrsllcknowlcdgc lhc olher as ur xulonomous subjcct, '!s \ o, nc llr nglhr r h i rsrr i n d e p c n d e n l c n e c o l rrs osn. $hrch. r\rn lhcrlo,.. rr c.trnot !rh^ lor ils owr nu''ll)scs.rl th obiccl doesnol o l r t so*n o. . or d d o $ h rt rl r. l i rn d o c sr,, rt (l ,S : Il l ) (thc K anti rn ceho.s ol lreNlrngfcoplc rs cnds in Ih.nNcllcs tulhcr than is mclns rrc unr r nr k r hle) rn rF o rc r. e rc hs c l l :c o n s e ro u s ness !1sorqhzc musl l n d aeeepr hr r r r\ w c l l -h c rn g n d c n l l r) !\ | s uhi ecli s boundup r a (w $ i th hos |l r s \ c c l h , rh c o l h c r s c l l -e o l s c r(' u rncsshi ch rs w here Hegelianrccognitrnrdrrlt.s liom Krnlirn rcspccl). Il lhs recognitioD is recip()cal, llcgcl rrgu.s. th.n n.ilhcr sidc need fear thai by dcknowlcdgingthc othcr lnd Lcling itsclf bound k) il (in a relation ship lik c lo! c , lbr c x l m p l c ) i l h rs l o s l i l s c l l ' (P S: l l l ): Li ch sccs

lh orrer do the sameas il dos:eachdoes ilselfwhal it demandsof lhe olhr, and thereforealso does what it doesonly in so far as the orherdoesihesame.Action by one sideonlywould bc useless bcause what is to happencan only b broushl abourby both' (PS: I l2). (For further discussion Hegel's conceptionofrecognition, see llonneth of 1995:3 63. S i eD1979. i l l i ams 1992. ) w fhe lih and death sttuggle Hegel makes clear. howeler. that with this oulline accountof tully developed.ecognition is anlicipaling.comnenling that Wc have he now to seehow the processoflhis pure Nolion of recognilion. ofthe duplicatins of self-consciousness its oneness.a/?ea^ to selfin consciousness. ,1rliffr, it will exhibit the side ofrhe inequalityofthe lwo. or lhe splitting-upoflhe middle tem inlo thc cxtremes which. as exrremes. opposd on another. are to one beingonly rcL\lAni.etl,rhe other only /?..rg,i:ina (PS: l12 13, my 6rst two emphases). Thus. }t lhe stagewe have reached, single self-conscjousness nol yct the is ablt to achicvea stable senseof its own idenrty in the lace of rhc other self-consciousness: he puis the problem elscwhere.'ln this as determrnalion thc trcmendons lies contradiclion rh.l. oD thc one handi the l is wholly unive.snl. rbsolutely pcsNsive. lnd inlcrrupredl by no l i mi t, i s rhe uni versal r ( r ll m cn. I he r wdJ mutual l y al ed vesherel bre onsr r lur ing dcnlily.conslit ut ing. l rel sel l c one so kr spclk. onc lighrr rDd yci. { rhe othcr hand.rhcy are also rwol scl ves dl y rnd unyi cl di ngL" nsi conr ior lr ng r ch ot hcr .eachex. ist ing\ ! as a reflection-inklscll:rs rbn)lurcly disrirct tion {nd impenetrablel by the othea (E S : .s.11{} 2. l 7{) l) . t hus. }c oncc againhr ve al tp (th rensl onbei l l eenuni vcrsal i ty c wholly uniler sr l l bclonsinsr oJ borh sell-conscrousnesses) indrvrdualily(the sense and thal cach sclf- I conscbusness has ol itsell as an lndividual iundamentallydistincl I liorn thc olhcf sclf'consciousness) Hegel s aftmpt lo bring oul lhe difliculty this crcalcsfor selt_-cons.iousnessachic!ing a stablesellin rdentlly rs one of thc most wcll known and influcntial scctionsol rhe Phtnotu.nalo&r:unfonunltcly. howcver. it is open !o conflictinS interpreulions.For.allhough I rs clerr that thc dialecliclakesus from 'dcsrc. lhrough lhe lllb and dealh slruggle. lo maslershipand

T HI

O LA L E C T I C O T T H E 5 I,/BIT CI

TH E Oi A LE C TIC

OF IH E

SUBJECI

servitude. it is not so obviorls exaclly what argumentis meant to underpinthe transitionfrom desire lo 'the life and deathstrug8le'. lhe On the simplestinlerpretation, argumentis as follows (cf. Shklar 1976: 28). As we have sen,the difficulty with desireis that as the subjecl laces a conrinualprogression. the deslructionof lhe of object leads ro the re-eme.scnce desire. Tbe subjeci then tums tiom objects lo othcr subjrcts in order to resolvethis difficulty: for othe. subjccts do not nccd to be desroyed in order to be madc subscRicnt kr rhc {111,so they can bc assinrihledwithoul leding oflhe ro thc contradiction ofdesire: 'On accounloflhc indcpcndence cxn obiect, lherelbrc, Iself'consciousncssl nchicvc salisfacliononly whcn lhe objecl itself effccls lhc ncgalion wilhin ilsell . . . Since thc oblect is ur ils own self neSalion. and in being so is al lhe samc timc 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 ;nrposemy will on you. so you will try ro imposeyou. will on mer we sill thcn cnd up in conflict { lhe lile and deathstruSglc). *hich is only .esolvcd\hcn one ol us concedes and s uc c um b1 ol h c w i l l o fth e o th e r. e n ce s h becomi nS .sl ave. d eleal. whilc thc viclor bccones the masler. As dn argumenl.lhrs hasa cenain plausibilitv:but il sccmslhrl more sophisticalcd mind. ds il lervcs out an in Ilegel had somethrng i m por t anl pecof l h c tc x l .1 np r i c u l i r, i l l c r\e s oul l he si gni l i cance as l lhe sourccoflhe struggle.ratherlhan./.ur.: lhal is. olia4*it&a-4s it rppccrsthrr ir is nol bccrustfaii rryrng b uke you sublecrto nrr" tr ill rh.r $c cnd up fighlinS,but because ani seekirgto secnrerecog I that | !!rnl you lo s.. mc rs Nnother Dirlonlionr you. shere rhi\ nreans \u bt c c r( lit r s h, eh l rn rn g )o u i rro . v c h i l l c l i i r n r v l csi .esi s nei thcr rc ph. . s r l. ! r . r s lh . o u tl o o k l s c l L c o n s c (N s n c \s. o bc(use n hasreal i?.d rhlll rlcsr.. rs conlrrdrck)|'v- hofcs k, lnxl in rccognitiona idnn : rr o fpr r ( r ex l s ell hc rrgl h rl rs In o rcrc rl ,/x h l l j l h u s.{hcn H e8elsl ys th r t [ s ] c ll- eor s e rb f.\\ .\l n \ i n n tl l i t rl s c l l$ h .rr, .nd by l hc fdcl thal. il s, e\ists lar ntrothcritbt is. rt cxists only in bcing ackno\ledged (PSi I I ll. hL rs hcr. lrkcn k) h. intftdueing! new slep in the r of!vi l l throl gh d i a lec r icwher cr . c o g n i ti (n ra l h cth rn th c i n rp o si ti on , d es ir e s hc c onr c c g o { l o l c o n s c i o u s n c s s . h. th 75

Even iflhis .eadingis accepted. however.there is sti room fbr debateover how the life and deathsrruggle bcrwccndifte.entsubjects is to be u.derstood. one view. rhe explanation comparable the On is to explanatjon ga!'eaboveon the des;c account: we namely,while I wanr you to recoEnize me. I do not want 1()recognize you, as this seems to threalenmy individuality.rnd/o.freedom. we are inev'rlbty ted into so a bahle forrecognitionas etuh t.ies to wrestrccognirionfrom thc orher while giving nothing in rc1um;clenrually. this bahle is won by one subjccl or lhe othc., who lhen servcsas nasler ro lhc other as st.vc (ct Findlay 1958:95). As we have sccn.Hegel ernphasjzes lrck rhis ofmutual recognition rhc outsel: Al 6rst. Irecognirion]wi exhibjt d the sideofrhe inequalityofthe two, or rhc splitting-upofrhc middle tem inlo thc cxlrenr;swhic6. a! extGnres. opposed onc !nothe.. arc to onc being only r..ryn/:./ thc orhcronly r..oa,Ei,s (PS: II2 ll). Ho$ever, whilc agarn this ifgunrent has n ccrtain plausibitiry. on lnolber line ol inlcrprclalion it rppcrn defecrivcas a readingof lhe rcxt. bccause nrisscsout anothcr imponanl rspcct of Hegel.s il discussion. which is the sianificance givcs lo the l-act he lhll in rhe lite and dealh stngSle. individualsshow lhemselves witLng ro tb.feit rs lhetr lives Thc contrast may be put rs lbllo$s: on thc prevrous rcrding. risking one s lilc is merely a sidc cftecr (as rr wcrc) ot thc lack ot muturl recogni ti on. hcrc thrs l cadst o r sr n, ggicin $hich t ili is w j mperi l cd. hi l eon thc rcadi ng r r c nos consr ( t cr in8, w $e r iskinrone 5 liie aslhc rtzro"rAr lh. strugllc irsclll Hos cdn this blrl On llis r.rding. rhe !n$v$ is thal in ordcr to achjele recognilion.I nNsl sho$ \ou rh l I rm ! subjeclnnd not N mc.e l i vi ngl hi ng;burrl thoul h crch of us t no$s lhr r we ar esubjecr s, sc nccd ro convintc rhc br|l; rhll qc {r., lbr orhcNisc we may bc sccn xs nrerelylrvinS crcrturcs heling in sub]ecrhood, so bil lo lnd be granlerlthc recognitionwc require.As Srnre puts ir: ro the extenl rhat the Othcr apprehends rs bouDdro I body ald imni:rsed jn /4i. nrc I anr mvsell only z, Orl.,. ln orderto makc mysclf recognized thc by Other, I mun risk my own lill. lb risk one s lifc. ur tact. is lo reverl oncsclt asnot-boundto lhe objeclivc form or t0 any dctermined exislence as.orbound to life (Sanre 1958:2:l7i cll also Kojdve 1969: .{ 0 l . I,ukuyama 1992:150 2). Th us.on t hisr eading. lhc equ; em ent r on each subiecrto rlsk ils lifc is the rcnson ibr the lili and death

THE OIA I E CI I C O I T H E

'UBJECT

TH E OIA LE C IIC

Of

TH C S U IJ IC I

struggle. rather lhan the lack of nutual recognition, as ach mes b show rhe other thlr it is not a'mere' livin8 crlturc. Now, textu.l suppon fo. this intcrprclstion can b found frcm rhe followin8 pa\$8cs: lolnc individual is confrcnredby anotherindividual.Appearing they are for one anolherlikeo.dirhusimmediatclyonthe sceoe, individualssubmerged lhe in nrry objerls, t ./4par.&r, shapes. thc objtcr in its immediacy b.ins lor immcdiacy]of ry'" for of is hcrc dctcmined as Life. They arc. l)r..r(, d/r./. shapes yer acconrplishcd move'nent the which havc nor conserourncss ofabsolute rbslraction.of r@ting-ourall immctlialcbein8. and o! bcin8 mcrely lhe purely ncS.rive hcing of self-idenlical in corsciousncssi other words. they hnv! not as yet exposed themscllcs ro eachother it lhe lbmr of purc bcinS-for-seli or !s scll-conlcrousnesses. (P S i l l l ) Here,Hgelappcar"to b claiminath3t the mostbasicwly for a subjtt an'l henceto achicvc ro demonstratc stalusas a subjectto another, ils is recognitionfor ils subjecthood. lo show that it is prcparcdto sac.i' fice its cxiste.cc ns an object: lhat is. to shd* lbcl n i$ prcpatodro g i ve up iis lil! : 'lhc prusrntrlion ol itselil how$cr. as llrc purc abslraclionol scll-cons.iousness consistsin showing itself rs tlrc pure negaoon ol ns objcclrle mode,or rn showrngthal il is nol lttachtd commonto k ' r nr ' ipc c rti c .rrrrr? .., n o l to th e i n d tri duul i ty . r,) Ih!' sl hercl ac \ r s r c nc c\ s u c h rh rt n i s n o t ru a c h c d l rl a ! udNrdr.h r! n'elr lhxl lhcy prole rr ol lhc r*o scll-conscious thcnNcl\c\ Jotl cach olher thrcugh r hll-nn.l-d.alh strugtsle. 'lhc) rnrsl cn8a8c in this strugglc. li)r lhcy nrust rarsc lhcrr ccdrrnr) .l bfrog /r,. rr.r'J.115 k) lruth. h)lh rr thc caseol thc s|akingone s othcr rnd In rhcrrosn case.And il rs only lhri,Lrgh lilc rhrl lirctlo rs rlonl and lhus il is pruved thal for self-conscn sncss,irs cssentialberrrg is not 0ustl bin8. not the In in',.,r/,r/r. li)rnr nr $hich il lpperrs. nol ils submrSence the eJ(pansc hlt. bul Bthcrlhal thdreis nolhiogprcsenlin it which ol 7A

couldnotberegarded o vanishing as moment. ir is onlypure rhst

For tlegcl. it appears, crearure a rharshowsir has knowinStyand wi ingly riskedits destrucrion a livingfting lherebydifTerendares 6 irsetf from mcre animal life, and shows irsctfro be hunan. As he purs ir in rhc Phih8oph\ of Right I have rhcsc timbs and my tite onty in so lut cr / ri// t: the animalcannormurilalcor destroyrrself.bur lhe hunan bcrnScan (PR: 1j47,p. 7tl). (Ci also SEL: 22ti. .tElvery delerminacy by which llhe single beinS] should br Srippdhe can cur away from himscll and in death he can reltizc his obsotuteindependence snd frcedomrorl himselfas absolurelynSarivc cor,s!,ousness. , Howevcr. while the rcading we are now considerins has an advmb8e over fic orhersrn doing jusiice to rhes aspecrs ofrhc rexr. it h.N thc disadlantaSe makinSrhc arSumentopen to an obvious of objcclion: nrmely. if whar is requircd hcrc tb. recosniiion of my subjecthdxl is rhar I risk my lafe.phy do I have ro tighr you? why couldn't I show my lack ofconccm for nry br('toSicat narureand endr by risking my life in front of you in a non-conflicruat way (Junping ofl 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 I do so lhroughaltcmpling lo kill yout, No{. an obviouslnswer nrighrbc kr txy lhrt whitc | lnr dnven lo lry to risk life to shos nrysell k, hc I \ubicet in your eycs.t an) 'ny dnlcn lo liSht you becauscI nilt sr'I you k) rcco8Dize wirhou( me i 8r!i nB!ny recogrni onr rcl un. I bus.nt lnr ! m y t if c in t ight jng you gi l cs mc x food sl y of rehre\ r ogbot h Dr y ! o! t s ! r once. This. houc\cr. nr) \enl ! rJrhcr tkl hoc $n\ ot bri[8rn8 thcscrqo til^trs ol thc lli and deathsrru88lcr,rgcthrr.tr atsodocs nol sccmto lil lhc Irirl \cry wcll tor. Hegelsccnrs oller. drflcrcnr.nswer to lhequcs_ r(' t|,)n qh! lcomc lo raskmy lifc lhrouShrhc tifc and deathsrru!8tc. Ihc rclclant passaSe as tbllows: is Thc rndividualwho has nor riskcd hrs lifc may wetl bc rccog_ ri/cd ns I /'.^oa, bur hc has nol afiaincd to rhe rruth of this ru.otnrtronds an rndependcnt jusr seticonscjousncss. Simrlarty. rs cr(h srakcs own life. v) c ch must seckrhe orher,sdellh, his

DI A L C I I C ' HE

O'

I HT

SUAJCCT

TXI OIAL ( TIC OF IXE 5 U SIfC I

for il values the othcr no morc lhan itslfi its essnlial bing is prsntto il in the form ofan 'othC, it is oulsideof nsclf and must rid ilsclf of its s.lfrtemality. The other is a. inted4r and it musl consciousness cntangl.din a varity ofrelationships, as or reSardits othemss a pur bcinS-for-self 4 an absolule (P S : I l a) ofthis psssag.might be lhis (basedon the thought One inrrprralion that the life-risker'lalucs the other no more than itself): I have no .esard for myselfqua naturalsubjecr,so I haveno rgad for you qua natuGl subjecl. and I lind no rcasn nol to kill you in so far as lifc is merely pan ofyour bin8 !s a nalural subject.However,whil misht erpbin why I sould be p'e2dred to kill you. this interpretation n does rcr explain why I should feel (r,,t/./e./ to do so. So ano$er interprEtalion mighl b lhis: I only expect rccognidonfi'om you in so far as I show myslfto be morthanan animalsubjecl likewis,I will only recognize you ifyou show yoursclf b be lhe same: so I *illnor rcognize you wilhout tcstinS you lo see ifyou are worthy of rtcognition, and thc *ry to do this is ro put your life in pnl md sehow you (ci Kainz 1976:88.'Theego musl accordingly itselflo find st bebave proof; it must"tsl'th altr-e8o the offreedom. toadjudicat presnce And rhis tesl will inlollc thc nc8ation. disrcgard.and destrucl;on of life.'). This lhen xplainswhy subjcctsfisht ach olhr: each is DreDared slake ils lilc. while eachsctsoul to lest lhe olber. so cach to will anack the olhcr. while eachwill respondby dsking its life. Put in schem{ic lerms. wc have idenlificd lhrce different lccounts ol-the trrnsitronliom dcsi.c to the liic rnd dealhstrugglei A: dcsirc -t inrNsc t,ill on objccr\ r inrposc will on J suhjccrs (:lch lrirs l(' imposc sill on rhe orherJ life and dc.th srrugglchrtwccn subjccts B: dL'sirc+ Inrpos.sill on objccrsJ nxr\c liom dcsre lo oners sidcd rccoSnir('ni lilt and dc lh \tru881c. one subjec(seeks to ad recognrlionliom oihcr wilhout 8rling lnylhang in retum J c: dcsirc r rmposr wrll on obJecrs move ftom desire to recognition+ rccognrtionby other requircsstating life. and

r.coSnilion of oth.r rquires r.srinS orbcr for willingncss ro statc life J lifc and d3rh srrus8le As well as havins diferEnl sructurs, lhe! accounr! also hav. rarh.r diffrent implicationsregardingthe timiialions of sclf-consciousnss lhst Hgel is rrying lo highlighr ar rhis sra8e.thal lerd ir inro the tifc rnd death slruggle. Undc. inlerprctation A. self-consciousness is limited becsus rears subjectsas ir rrealedobjects,and so r.ies to n 'ngate them. Under inlerprelationB, self-consciousness limilcd is by the fact that il is unabletogra rccognitionro othersubjcrs wirhour f..ling that its own autonony is uDdermind. And underinterDrctarion C. self-{onsciousnss limited bcaus Rndsit can only show irself is it lo be a selfby risking its life. bcause this slagin the emergence ar of the slf il lacks any olher resources doing so: .ln a primirivc for siluatronthe only way I can demonsrr.icmy indepndence from my animalbeingis show that it is norhinglo me: I musrrisk my lif in rhe cyes ofrhe olhei (Bemsiein 1984: l5t ct ES 64122. p. 172, where HcSelhimslfsaysthat rhe srrugglefor recognirion can onty occur in the naluralstate. where men exisl only as single.xcpararc individuals. whercas in sociery pmper individuals can show rhcnrsclvcs bc lo 'wonhy of this recognition' by showing thrm$ltcs nr hc nrtional subjcctsby obeyins thc la$. filling a posr. folk wiru t| rra(le. orher or kinds of socialactivitvl. ( lf. however,we adopl rnterprcr.rr(D irs lifirn8 rhc lcrt Drore eomplclclylhaflthe orhcroplionsw. h.!c cdn\(icrcd. rh.rc is noncthclcss somclhingralhcr unsdtislictoryrhoul rhis inlcrprcl rion s line on lh.8rcunds l-or the difficulrics lirced hy sell-consci,nrsncsscs lhis ar rh8ci namcly.thal lfic socialordcr is kxr linritL.d alk)w rccoSnilion t,) ro(r.ur srrhour nsl ol -l rl- c r , upun! lno$ t he( lir lcclilj 0re lit hasbcr n drrlcn by $nne son of.rnr.,r)/rdl onc{rdedness tensioD. undcr or hur Intcrpn.hlion ( il is drilcn by the l:ct rhlt sell-coNeousncss is opcrrlrnSIn r 'prin itile situaraon which would sccl . kn lhc Hnd of./?es,rul dragno5is halc sccn h(hc o. sc Now. n may be lbr lhis reaen ihat in a later discussron the ot fffa rnd dcathstrugglein rhc En.t.lotltliu. HeSelsccmsto rc\'cn ro rmlcthing mor like interpretanon wherethc lilc and d('arhsrrua8le B. |' srd k,l{lc placcbccause .ecognnron rhis sra8cis onc-sdcd lhar at 8l

80

TH

OI A L E C T I C

O T IHE

SUSIECT

TH E D IA LE C TI<

OF TH E ' U 3]E C T

throughthe limrtednotionol freetlon opefis one-sidedness explained uother as a subjeci, ative here:namcly,rhat ifone subjeclrecognizes ir lakesthis lo undeminc its freedom.and so is unwilling to grantthis It is slill lh caselat lhis poinl in the dialcctic] thal in lhat I recognizeanotheras being free. I losc my freedom. At lhjs present standpointwe havelo completclyforgelthe relationships we ar used to thinking about. lf we speakof ri8ht. elhicaliiy, the others. I recogni^ lovc. we know lhat in lhal I rccognrze We thcir completeperonal indcpendence. know too that I do nol suilbr on this accounl.but have validity as ! frcc being. thal in thal the olhers have righls I have then too, or thal my riShl thal of lhe other i.c. lhnt I am a liee pemon. is also esscntially and lhal this is essenliallythe slmc !s the olhe6 rlso bcing pe.sonswilh righls. Benelolcnceor love does nol inlohc the submrgence my pe.sonalily.Here. however.lhcre as yet of 's for no such relationship, one aspecloflhc dctcrminationrs ihat an ol my still bcin8.as a liee sell-consciousncss, immediateand lhe immcdidtc singLrlanly my scll_ ol single onc. ln so l-aras am tieedomare nol yel separated.l unlblc and consciousness my of my p.nicularily without sunendcnng to surrcndcranylhing at my iiec independen.e . . [S]cll-consciousness rhis nandpoinl res;strccognizing olher as a trcc bcing.jusl as. on an . . . must lhe olher hand.cdchmusl concem nsclfuilh cliciling recognibcrng lior wit hi n l h c o l h c i s s e l l -c o n s c i o u s n css. posi l edas rn I ndc f c nd c nb c i n s . IT l h c s i n s l cs c l l l i \ nd' l abl cto bcarthc l ()fi dri olhc r ' sbe i n gi n d c p e n d .n l l . s o l h rr rh c ! nc.cssN ri l y fi i nk) r nnr 88le . l l l P \\.l 1l Z.tp. 77. 79) mtrc l i k c x c o e c p rr oll l ni l rl i on bri ngi ng llc r c s c hr ! e n ,!trtl h rn B hkes r houl lh. lr lr nn d d c x ths l ru l s | c .l i ,r { c h s .l l ' . onscrousncss n Ihrt recogrxi,D ol lhc lfccdonrol rhe oth.r thir'rt.ns ilr o{n lieedotn. lhrt rc be lic. rs lr, bc rblc lo rgnorecl.inr\ in so lirr rs rl rssunrcs ls. made on nr. by olhcr IndrvidLr and k) lcl c\rclly as my egoislicdl l des ; es{ m y pin i c u l n (y )d rc l x tL . l i s l l c S c l s a i m i o showl hal bol h r hes c s unr pr i d s rc n rs trk c n(c l l P R : \ 1 5 .p p. ,189), i n a w .y l hat as a

slf-consciousness musr come lo accepl if ;t is to move beyond rhe that leadsto the life and death srru8gle.(Cf. also PRi 957, 'mpasse p. 87. where Hegel statesthal what 'gives rise ar rhh stageto the tt/uaste Jor rccognitk'n and ofthe .elationship ofbr.llhip and seni/lr.tu is the as yet only immediateconsciousness off.eedom.,) Master and slave llowele. the transilion from desire to the lifc and dealhsrruggle is undernood.the rransirionf.om he.e to masrcrshipand sewludc js more srraightfo ard. as it brcomesapparenr lhal lhcre is something deeply unsalisfyingabout the lifc and dealh slrugglc as a meansof achrevingrecosnirionin the eyes of thc other: fbr eithcr the subjecl succeeds killing lhe other. in which clsc there is no orhcr subject in lo do lh recognizing. o.lhe lirst subjectis killed. in which c.sc their srlflood is losl: This lrial by death,howevcr.docsaway with the mrh which rlas supposed issuc lrom il. and so. roo. with the cenainty h ol self gencr.lly. lbr iust as lilc is rhc dl,rdl se(ins of conscioun ncss,rndependencc withour absol]tcnegdriviry,so dealhis the rdnlrdl ncSalnntofconsciousncss, negahon !vithoutindcpcDdence. which rhus rtmnrnsw l thou(thc regui .c d gniiicance . ccognit ion( PS: ll. 1) . s; of As soon!s this occurslo scll--consciousness. ir givcs ut its strugglelo appcaras ! subicet in ihc cycs of th. oth$. l d henccirs slruSlle to '8o ,rec . and so bccomcsI sh!.. (hcc onc scl | conscrousnes\ lizcst hxt lr r 'e s r s csscnt i. t o r cr r l ( rt rs ture \cl l -consci ourj cssPs: I ljl. lnd so gr \ c\ up lhc ljlt and dcrlh struggle.rl atpcrrs Nl lir\r lhrl lhc rwo scll .onsci('uiress can ti os rtl ri n ! kl nd ol cqui l i hrium{hcn t he onc lf ir t hr s givenup lhc . \tru88l ri s the sl nl e l nd l hc o r hcrr \ r hc r r aner . lhc n[ sr er can now \hdw himscll to be a subiect nr th. eyes ol the shve. nor by nskrng hrs lil!'. bul by cxcrcisingpower ovc. thc slaves body. lhe !cry thing th{ rlirvc wxs nor preparcdto losc in thc struggle.At the s{nrc timc. lh( uxst$ c n o\crco'nc his estrangenrcnl fnnn the world nol sinrpl!, hy lry'n8 to desrioy il (which sas the only possibiliryat lhe tet'et of (lcsrrc)bul hy setrng the slalc to work on I Ilowcvcr. flegcl quickly scls out ro demonstratc lhar lhis appa.crl sl i rhrl rl i s i l l usory.H e begins por nt r ng r hr t r hhought hc y by oul
8l

a2

T HI

OIALC<II(

O F T HE ' U6 I' CT

THt Ot At a( r t c ot t r {f t u! it cT of sclf ( PS: I | 8). Rarhr, in his work the shve labouB for som.oo cls's salisfaction, and so larns respc! for the indpcndcnl exisr.nce of th. objccts amund him, with which he finds hc can work. Consciousncas comesto a new conceplion itslfas an individul in thus of th. world, by no* teaiinS lhat world as a placc to ehich il is anuncd, nol mer.ly because has various skills thar makc il 'mssrr ovcr il iomc things'. bul t'causei. possesssuniv.rssl tbrmativc activity' which give it univrsalpower' oler 'the wholo ofobjective beinS' (P S : l l 9). Stoicism, Scepticirm, and the Unh.ppy

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 diffcrntlv fiom an obJcct id so far as lhe slave(like any objccD is a mer. inslrunnt ofhis will. and so i! is hard for hiln to maintain lhat any rEcognilion has ben achieved.So. ahhoughon thc onc hand 'thler . is ptEsntlhts sets viz lhat th lslave] consciousness aside momem of recognition. on lhc olhcr handbecausewhat the bondsman ils own being-fo.-sell', dGs is really rhc aclronofrhe l(,rd . [r]hc outcomeis a recognrlron that is one-sidedand uncqu.rl (PS: 116) At lhe same time, Hegel rl argueslhat contrary to iniliul spptarances. is the slale that 'will into rlscll and bc lransformcd inlo a tuly independent withdraw consiousness (PS: ll7). Thc lir't sicp. Hegelclaims,comesthrough the erperienccof lear with hich (s sen itudc began:in this lh trdn" oflife wasbroughthomc lo the slavcin a way that lhe master sitonness so has nol comc lo l1. it rs lhe masierand nol the slavewho has thc mosr 'immediate .elalion$hip lo his naluml existeDce Likewis. ihmugh his work for the maslcr. the slave is forcd lo sel asidc his own desires.and rhus findr himsclf no longer dnvn by them Mosl . the bondsman inponanlly of all. HcSel argucs.'$rou8h work in ofwhar hc truly is (PS: I|8) This is bcaus. becomes conscious creatingthings nol for himslfbul for the masler.he is forced notJust thinSs.but rathrto labour on them whilc lavingthem to consume '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 lhal it is p.eciselyin his wo.k wherern rcaliTcs himseli:thc bondsman a k, he se'ned huveonly.rn rlienatcdcrislencr lhut he acquircs mind ol his own ( l' S : l l 8 l 9 ) l l c g c l i s F n i .u h rl t j nsi sl .nll hat al l i hrcc ol r hc s ec lun) to r{ l tl r. s c n re c .. d $ o rk o n thc * orl d mun bc prcscnlk,gcrhctlir lhi\ rc lllirlron kr oceur.r\.lhcNise eachwiU bt rn*litl dnd mule unlesslhc dcsftded (lirr L\tnrplc. lcttr $rll rcnr! .rn lin hnn\cll r8!rn th(nr8h sork. $hrlc work wilhotlt the subrecr c\pencn.. ol lirr $rll nrLln r( onec rgxrn bccomcs an emply scll' lnr c enr er c d lud . (l ' s : l l 9 l r ofindividuThe slu\c therlli,rc conlc\ k, r drlliJcnt conception ality from rhrl rdoptcdhy lhc mrslr ($ho hnsnot Sonemuch bevond desire).In padicuhr. lhc sln\c no bnScr |ccs thc rorld as alien lo rl. which musl lhcreli c b. ncgotcdrl it rs (r achiclc'ils unallovedfeehnB 84

Coni(iourners

HavinSoffered his inseniouslyinsiShrfulaccount ofthe relariveposit'ons ofthe maslerand rhe slav,Hgelnow movcs on to a discussion ol a posjlionhe idenlifieswirh Stoicism. Sad<itm BroadlysfEnking.the tEnsiliotr to Stoicismseemsro invol!c a rmnsilnn liom the one-sided pmcticalnniludc ofdcsirc and thc maslcr.to a ncs fom of theorelicalattiludebrou8ht rbout hy thc rnsightsof the slave This theorelicalanitude is a lind of tulid[|lsrr. for thc Sk)ics t'(licvcd that lhe un;ve.sewas goremcd b) l,lloi or fcnson..|ndrhar mans rational soul is a f.agnrenl ol thirl dilinc /o.(d. nd so wc conuchi el cw el l -bci ng l tt uningour scl! cs o t hc cosuic schcm c by t ol' l hrnS s. 1.P S : I2l . fsl oi cismsl t r iDciplcr s t hl|tconsciousncssa is {( bcing lhal /rt,lr. llnd lhlt consenNsncss holds sorr)cthing bc cssen, k, tirll) iDpo.tanl. or lrue rnd good only in so lirr rs it r/,irtr il to bc srlch ) ln hringnrgin Sroicj\ hcrc. ind in lhc subscqucnl transitions lo Sccplicismlnd lheD ro ibe Llnhappy(onsci{nrsncss. is not ble il (!s lhot llcgcl is rcfcrina lo acru.l hisrorical eprs()dcs hc will do latcr. In rcicrinS lo thc Frcnch RelolurioD.for crrmplc). lndeed.as many conrnctrlrbrs hale poinrcdout. in mcnlioninSth t lhc Sk)ic aims !r frclalom whelheron the lhroneor in chams . llc8cl surcly mcantus to lhankol lhc lrte or 'Roman Sloacs MarcusAurclius and tipiotclus.rhc formor an Lmprcr, the laner a (libmred) sl.vc. This lhen raises th. qucst(n ofhow far the derelopmentofthd Pr.non.rol,$ more

a5

TXf

OIALCIIC

O F iHE

SUB' ECI

r f r c ot at t cTlc

of Tua su6r ccT

Senerally should b. sccn in historical lerms, and how much il should be rcsd as a form ofsprublivc hisbry. oflhe sort Hegpl was laler lo prcs.nt in his Lecturcs on thc Philosopht oI History. Ancmpts hav. be.n madc to rcad the Prcnorn4olog,' lhis way (ct Forstr1998:291 500). should bc distinguished. but my orn viw is lhat thc two entcrpriscs havethe placeihey do bcause snd that in this t.xt historicalepisodcs in lhal they rlatto panicularstagcs the.or.dprral development H8l I think it would therefore w.ong lo be is tracingout for consciousness. try to build up llegel's accounlofthis (and other) historicalpisodcs (For funhcr of infoa historicisrreading the Phcnonenolost ^s^whole. sec discu$ion ofthis issuc. 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 tmnsilo tion. as HcSel seems give it a purely smio-political dionale, with that Sbicisnt arissas bolh the masterand slave *ek his suggestion of lo es.ape from the unsalisfacloraness lheir sial *orld. as lhey abstEct from the rnlity of thcir silualion inlo a world ofcontemplalive indiffcrcnccto rhear $urroundinSs: This con$iousncssaccordinSlyhas a ncS ivc anitudc ro$ard5 As the lord and bondsman rclationship. lord, it doesnol hale ns is lruth in thc tNndsnnn,nor lts bondsman its ruth in the lord s will rnd in his scRiccl on thc contrary.whelheron the threne in or in charns. the utrerdlpendenceofits itdividual exisrence. rls aim is lr) bc lhc. nnd lo mainlain ihll lifeless indiffcrcncc which slcadlastly wilhdrtrwsfron thc bustlc ofcxislcncc, alike l-ronr hcin8 nelivc as passi!., inh lhc simtlc essenlialilyof w il r lr ( nr 8hs.c l l -w i l l i s rh cl ru c d o m h i e hc rl runehessel fi n sornf l pr r lr euli n l y l n (l i s s ti l l n r h o n (l i 8 c .w hi l c S l oi ci sm i s thf and rerurns lrrcdom $hr(h 11{rys conr(sdircclly,'!t ol bondage As I nk ' t h{ p u r. u n i !L i s l l i ty(rl l h o u g h r. x un;l cFal form ofthc s r i W or l( l- s p i n r. k ' re i s nc o u l (lo n l y rp t1 .rron l hc sccne n a l i mc ol uorlcAxl linr rnd hond fe, hul rlso ! timc of unilcrsal cuhurc qhreh hrd rarscdirscll lo thc l.\.1 of lhoughl. (P S : l 2l ) It may sccm lio r thr5.lhal llcgcl Intcndsus to lre the move fmm lerms. the mrstcr'shvc rchrn'nshrplo Skncism in quasr-malerialisr 85

as a form of consciousnss thar emerges in reqronse to its sociopolitical predicamntin a (doomd)ancmpi lo come to tcrms wilh it (cf. Kojdv 1969: 53. who spaksof Stoicisrn as an ideology of Thcrc are signs. however.that this is not ih b.st way to tak. H.gcl's pr(Xedurhere. Ralher. il could be srgued rhat HcSellhinks th8t wilh Sloicisln.consciousness taking a new lum. and thal the is insi8hls needcdto make this tum possible are only availablc onc consciousness benlhroughth m.rster/slave has dialeclic.In his inlroduclory remarksto this seclionas a wholc. Itegcl siSnalslhat whn movesro rhe rationalism conscrousness ofthe sroics, it has ffrived ar a new a itudc to thc worldi for the Stoicssaw reality as prmeated by rcason. thar thoughtis seenas Siving us access th rarionalstrucso to tur inherentin lhings. which ar now no longer viewed as 'orhci by we are in the preynce of slf{onsciousness if, a ncw shap!, a which, as lhe infinitudeofcon$iousncss or as its con$aousness own puremotement.asaware ofils.lfas csscntialb(in8. hcing a which rri,tr or is a f.ee self'consciousncrs. r.) rrtrl dd:s Iir nor mcm lo bc !n drrrzr'l l . but an 'l qhrch hus t thc samc rimc rhc significrnce of n'rrrrn, hcing. ol h rinr irsclf for objecl.or ofreln'in8 nsclfro objccri\c h.i'r8 ir $rch I $ly rhtir ils Jrgnilicanccis rhe ,.,r1. /or j.// of rhc corsci(nr$,.:ss li)r w hrchi l i s l rn obj cttl . . . I n r hnr kins. , t . . . bccnusc ld, llnr mt i n .rn,1,.?, but ren uinsim plynndsolclyin conr n) un( ){it h n nryscl f. thc ohj ecr. eh i\ lnr nr c lhe. r n, r / / , i/ bcing.ir I n urd {hr undi !i dcd tynrybcing t u nr yscllr nd m ) lcr i! it y in conecpuni r l L[l thi nki nS s { n()!c m cntwiihin nr yscli i ( PS: I 20) lhc scn$ thar '[i]n lhinkins. I dn /i... because am not ir an rrrdr' 1 ri tcry much what llcsel himsclf hopshe will Eive us !s a rusult of hr$ irltcmpr ro lind ralional etisfaction tbr the subjccr in lh. world (cl: Neuhouser2m0: 20)i and to thc ertcnl rhat we havr lrflved at rhc idea thal lhoughrcan help rhe \ubjccr find nsclf in rh world. wc arc in the presnce slf-consc'ousness a ne* shapc. of in ( onc liNt rcprcscntcd the Btionalismof Storcrsm. o by 87

I Ht

OIALTCTIC

O F T HC ' USJECT

IH F

OIA LE C TIC

OF TH E S U s II(I

dominated by the assumption that thought contmsts to the world of while s.lf-cons.iousness to now has mer.ly up concrlecxperience. sen thc world ss an other' to b ncgrtcdi bul lhe Sloic adopts a talio.alistic alnc that oflers a way oul of th difficullies thrl thesc by asiumptions havc gaused, lrcating lhought as a vchicl through which !h lubjccr ci& 6Dd itsft i! thc rdorfd. 4mch r! HcgEf hims.if believd. (Ci FL: $242, p. 37, 'Th significationthus aitachcdto thought and ils chaEcieristicfonns may be illustratedby lh ancienl saying thal'roar aovems the world'. or by our own phrase lhar "Reasn is in thc world'r which meansthar Reasonis fte soul oflhe world rl inhabits.its immane pnncipl. its most prop.r and Inward nature.its universal.) Hegcl saw in Stoicismnot just a 'slave Now if(as this sussesN). perspeclive thar the be8inningof a ncw philosophical ideology'. bur would uliimarely culminale in somcrhinglike his own oullook, lhe inlercstinaquciion conceminS lhrs iransnionis whal giles il rts place lcrms? Hos in rhe dialeoticin conceDtual mrher than socichrstomcal Inlo does the tx)silion oflhe shvc (in panicular) lead con*-iousncss The ans$cr,I think. can be senby rccrlling lleScl s this new shapc'? of charactcrization thc slave\ positl()n:for rhe d^vc found through working with things in the world. that lhe world co{peratcs us he nr .rtempls to bring his ide$ lo rcaliTution his p.odtlcls.so lhal nirture io to no lonScrsccms.rlien ;r (!nd rhusas somclhin-! bc nc8aied). or !s somchos bcyond Ihoughl, lherchy nuking thc k;nd ol shii in h!\ ourl,r,k nccdcdb lerd us inlo Slo.isnt. As Tar_lor pul il: ThrouSh $ orl- dr\erFhn.and lhc fcrr ol dcrlh. lhc sl.rteshr\c.onE l.) r rccoSrrtr ol rhe trni\crsal.ol the lllwcf ol cdnc.tturl lhoughl l'livlor l( ) r 5 I 5?r lhu s . i r i s rh r n u \f s r* l ru r.s { o fhrnrscl l ach' e\i ng ol Nn m { 8hr r nr orh . $ o rl rn ts o l th . q o rl d rh rl n \c\ l hc di rl cel re ' w a\ eor r c r n^le\ \ o Ir,, l p frrP .l i !! Il .8 c l k l c n rrl i c\ sknci snr. h' ch hokl\ rhnl thoughrcMhl.s us lo bc rl orrc !rnh ihc r,rlion l univcrsc. lf o{ c \ c r . rs l l (' g c l n u l .s .l c rr h t\ L r rhtft\ trl Ih. Il i no^ . t I ' h r \ r ' ln. s h rl c k ) n n rE c \rc n r h c s r$ S l oi ci sNrs hc; k, l hc ol Bri(nrrhnrc $1tr|d-prcrurc |lrk) xtrd Airstotlc (lo whrch hrs own sF.culxrrvc mronalisn w.N dccpl) rnd consciously indcblcd). he nonetheless rn Sloi.a'n i liw ol r.ti()nalismthal was much more slw absrract and lirmulaic lhrn it hxd hccn in the brighl (;tccirn world' AE

(LHP: ll, p. 2la), malinS ils 'rccognitionofth. univeBal' inadequatc. Though histo.ically subscquenl to th worl of Plato and Arislolle, HBelthereforponrays Sloicismas conccptuallyinferior and so (io philosophical tems) as an exprsssioD ofntionalism in its crudc$ and most primitiv tbrm: 'The selfsan consciousness that repls iblf ftorn itsff becomesaware of itslf a5 lhe elernenrot heins-ii-itselli but at fi6t it knows ilslfto b this elemnronly as a universalmod. ofbeinS in genenl, nor as it existsobjctivelyin fte development and procssof ils nanifold bcing (PS: l2l). This is mther obscurcrbuI Hcgel inakeshis cnticism clearcrlaler in the sction.wherehe claims that th absmd ftinking of Stoicism. . . lums its back on individualily ahogether'(PS: l-10).by adopling a rationalstic pictur that is too cut olT ircm rhc con(rur( *orld. Thrs thrnkrngcon*-iou\nes\ is thus only the incomplete negalion of othemcss' {PS: 122). By offerins merely cmpry gcneralizations. Stoicsfailcd ro rclatethl:ir the conccplof reren lo individual paniculam:they could th.rcfore only pmvd plaritudes. not concreteadvice or knowl.dSe. As we saw in lhe Pretace. Hegel takcs mtionalismthat is overly abst.nctand formal in thk way lo b easily dclmded. so rhar can quickly bcomethc 'r victim of its anti-rationalislcnncs. ln order1oshow how Sloicismtillls victim n, thcsccritics.llcgcl brictly fcfers to rhr cenr.al cruxesthat lirccd Storc thought,pnrlicu" hrly rhc dimcultieslhc Sloicshad in ideDriliin! uny cnrcaon lir truth in lhcrr epislemology,lnd in SivinScont.nr lo rhc; !0gue claims in cthrcslhal'livrng if, agrccnrcntor'rn lccordrnc. *ilh reason con$F tutcs the gnrd hle. 'llul rhrr \cll-rdcntir) ol-thought rs againonly rhc purc limr in which norhrrs rs dcrermrned. Thc-lhrc and the cq'd. wrsdomand !irruc, thc gcncful rcms beyond which Slorcismcannol 8cl. rrc thcrclorc rn r gcn. l way nd doubl uplil|ng. bul since lhcy cannol in l-.rclpr(xluccany expaDsioD rhc contcnt,they smn ol (As llam s 1997. p. 417.n. 9 point sout . bccomcedi ous(P S i 122). i lr Kad Roscnkranz his bkrSrapher repons lhnt in thc conclusion1o his unpubfished early work ihc .5rrr.,,t .4 Ethkul Lil. lltto2 o. tE/Jll. ll.acl chrmctcrizcdthc RomanPeace lhe tx)r.{om oflhe world': as SIL: l8l.) Ficed with rhesedocrrinaldiflicultrcs. Hegel arsues, '.. Sloicscame to apparmercly dogm.tic in thcrr thc optimjslic claims rcloftln8 the rarionalily of rhc wodd and thc happiness that could

TH t DI A I E CT I C O ' T I' l t 5 U .,IC I come from conforminSounlvcs lo it in some abshct sense.Such dogrnalisn n.tunlly Sives ris lo a form of more cntical {and ullimatly 4rd-ralionalislic)Sccpiicism. Septti5rt Al lirsl. the Sccplic s anti-rationalism may not b apparent, he can as clain hc is mcrcly aiming at lhe kind ol tiedom of thoughf (PS: 123) thc Stoic wls looking ibr. sincehe is prepared question to everything, e!en thll rhere,i a world in which rationalsatisfaction may be tbundr Insicad.lhe Sceplic belicvcs we can achieve a pcaccful. healthy.satisl crory lil-eby droppinSralionllistic aspiErionsand displssionliely lbllowinS appcaranccsiIn Sceplicism. now. the wholly uncssentirland non-indcpendent characlerof rhis othel becomes erplicir ,,r .r)rrdobr.$r rhc labstmctlihoughtbecomes concrcte the lhinkin8 which antrihihtesthe beinS of lhe world in aU lls manifold deierminalene$.and thc tu:aativityof liee slf-consciousnes comes to know itsclf In rhc manyand vnricd fonns oflifc as a rcal neg.tivity' lo {PS: l2.l). tlcgcl thcn arlcmpts sho*. ho*ever. rhat lhis fKdom ot rhought is illusory: lor, oncc thc Sceplac accepted has ftal elerythinE can bc doubrcdand thus that thou8htcannottake us beyond apparancs.he endsup declarinS that thouShr;s in l-actpowerless and tums back to lhc sensrsial rhc slmc trmc. by holdin8 that evcrylhing wc know rs nrcrc,ipr^..arancc. implicirly rcrains idca thar iflhou8hr hc lhc could trk!: us bcydndthc scnsiblercalm. it mishr lchrclc a hi8he. kind ol lnorl!"dgc Ilcgcl thcrclbrc argucs thnr rhe rbnfulr ration!lism ol t hc S ec pt i c n l i te rl c ..i s i n l o n d c s p i ri ri .g nti -r tronal sm. rhc i r as s eeplic xc ons c i (u s r$ s.o n !i n ..s i l s c l l th rr rrl rcnal satrsl actj (ns l i , r r t r Ns r hl!lor u s . I t r s onr fc \l tc (rs rh c r(rrc o l l l c s c l s b rcl anl l vsi sof sccpr; . ('snr h.rL rs sur['\ng. rs rt rs npprrcnrl] n(trc critict'l md dismissivc ol s . r plr . r t u th l r,rc I' rs d rs e u \\| trr\e l s c * h crc. parl i cul rrl yi n hi s crrll c\srr_ln' the titntnl.lrrulrtl t'l lhrr,ldl,rf. The Relntronship ol Sccprfefsnk) I'hrlosrph!" (18(,11. a his later Lc<lurls n th( 'n I lt t , l ol I ' h tL tv p h (\c .' R Sl ' n n d t-tl P: Il . pp. l l l 2). In these d's(ussDns llc8.l dru$\ nn nnporrrnt conhst betweenancicnr and sccpt'crsrn. rnd $hrlc hc is hostilc to rhe lancr. hc is much 'D(xlcm 90

IH E

D IA L T C TIC OI ' fi I

J U B ' (T

morc f.silive atDut lhe former, largely bcausen was morc rhorouah8oin8, and nol merly iD rhe srvice of common-scru. dpat^9l philosophy (as hc |ool Humean sceplicism to b, panicularly a! doptcd by ns cerman proponnts likc C. E. Schul?. whos work is tcvicwcd in rhe early scepricisnessay). is lhi! conrrast It thar cxplains ,tiy.!. inrhe Phenonen lo&r. Hgl trearsscepticism s (dcgcnas .Blc) typ ofrationalism whn focusingon its ancienlform, while in i!! modm form he is more inclind to see il as nn our-and-our ant! nlionalism with no such 'positive side (an anti-rarionalismrhrt tllcr.forc resuhsin a kind of doBmatism. seeingnothing lo quesby tron In rppardnces). Unhawy Cons<iousngt

Hrvin8 shown how the ancientscepliccomes ro feel rhal rhoughris borh lll-powcrful and powcrlss. Hegel arSuesrhar '[iln Sccpricisrn. lruly erpraences @oiciousness iblfas intemally conhdicrory' (PS: 126).k is this duality rhal comes ro bc rcalizcd in whar Hegel calls 'This ne* fom is, thcrclbrc.onc which consciousness': 'd|GUnhappy tr.'5 lhrt ir is thc dual cons.iousness itscll as scll,lihcratin!. of un hanSeable. and slf-ideniical. and as sell-b(wildcrins nnd scllof nrlurc ot' Frvcnrng. and il is the awareness this scll-contnrdrckrry fr!.ff. . . lTlhe Unhuprt Co,!Litusn!!: is thc conscrou\ c\s of $ll | | a dual -ni l ured. merel ycon t r adict oN bcing {l'S: l26t I hur . ont he on. hmd.lhe lJnhap|y ('onscjousncss bcli.!cs thrt it is unablol0 tran!.cnd th. $orld of.hanreablc appearners.bur on rhc orhcr h.nd holds thrt rt cnn only atrnin siristacrionby so dorng: rathcr lhan hoping k) |chrclc sonremcrsu.c of rrinquilliry or'unpcrturbedncss (d/d/ i./) by hving wnh appeatuDccs (!s thc Sceptic dxl). lhc U hntty ( onrc(,usnessjs thcrelnrc painfuUy rwlrc o! ihc 8ap lhat cxisrs bclwccnitsclfas a contingent.linile indi!rdudl. rnd rculm ol ctcm l |,|d unrvcrsal reason. siDce the Sloic l)gor hls now bccomc an unlnowablc Bcyond. So. whereas the Storchekl lhrt thc crpacity lbr r onal .onlL'mplatron bclongcdro man. rl rs nos \('en !\ a capa(rl) lh.t bckrngi lo an alicn Beins (PSr 127). to a highcr form of which rhe Unhappy Consciousncss coo*-R,usncss now scb abole

OIALECTIC

O T iXE

SU B,.( T

TTIt

D IA LE (IIC

Of

TH C S U B ' F' I

has'projecled' Nonethcless, lhouShthe UnhappyConsciousncss this capaciry for rslional reflection onto anolher beinS that has th kind of etemal ard unchsnSeablenatule it lacks, Hc8cl interprts Chrisltin a clcar rcferenccto the Trinttyr as an anmpl to rctain 'anity somethingoflhc Stoicpictureof man s rdtionalsoul as a fmgmentof the divine L,aos, whil making the sccptic'sapparcntlyunsttaidabl 'unchanaeablc' iruft somcthing that could rlatc to the human- Thus, alrhou8h'the lirsl Unchangeable God] il knows only as lhe alien [i.e. on Beins who passes JudSemenr the patticularindividual , in lhe Son isa it still seesthat thc unchanscable form ofindividuality hke ilselt'. where 'the rcconcitiatktnof ils individualrty with thc unrlersal' is althoughrladisymbolizedby thc lloly Spirit (PSr l2E). Nonelhclcss. ( hrislianityrerains something lhccarlicr rationalistic of rionalmcdicvr| ihe framework.il stresscs liagility oflhe lnk bclwccn (iod lnd man. and hcnce the unccnaintyof any such reconciliationcoming aboui. s of Ihis fragilny is symholizrd in the apparenicontinSency Chrast is foundcd: Ihe hop ol binh. on which the hopc of reconcaliarion must rcmarn a hop. i-e. becoming one with ir lthc UnchanSeablel prcsentftuition. for betwccnlhc hope and lhc wilhout fulfilment and prcciselyth absolute conlin8cncyor inflxible ful6lmcnt therestands whrch lics in lhe very assumplion ofdclinrtc tbrm, whjch indifcrence rn gr ou n do l h o p e (P S: 1 2 9 ).T h u s .w hi l c ( hri sl i nni ty l hi s was r he in some ruspccts advanceon Sloicismand Sccpticism, rn form rs 'n lhal il has rccogniledlhat il rs nor possiblclbr lho!8hl to srmply tum fini_ xs back on in.liliduallry by abstractingliom thc conirngeocy. tudc.rnd sullcnnSol tuunl errstenccinl() r rcrlD ol rbst.n.t rhought. x (rll hb nor r_d nscn to thnt lhrnhng shcr. s pr nr c ut lr I nd r\rl o rh l l r\ rc c o n c i l c d ,rh l { r. rl l N S hl i l scl f IP S : ll( lr : t hc \ ubt..t l h .rrk trc Ii !l \ rh !r q d x !rd r\ rl url ' ubtcct.he r\ cul r\ olT t iom t h! l x r(rrl !(n R l o l o \rs rc n e (. -purc l hought. Thus. while r t t h( b c g rrn l r8 o l th c .h .p l c r $ rth dcnrc. o wanlc dr o ir in o \e ,rsn d r!1 (l u rl rty n th c $ o rl (i.rl h s hcrccomcrouD d (ur(lcqully on.{idcd ) pcrspccrvc. whcrc rl now sccs t lo rhe opposrrc to ils indr v idt rrl rt! rs !!tl rn E i n th e w .ry o l its atl cmpts achrel e allhough harmo.y wilh th( I n.hrngcrble As a rcsuh.llcSel argucs. the Chrisrirn conrc($ncss In some rcspcclshrs a conccflrcn ofthis rcconcilialron.rt hi\ r dr\r(flcd D'clurc ol hos such rcconc'Latron

miSht o.cur. in its three idsls ofrh Chrisrim lif, a prayer. wo*, .nd pcnilnc.Hegel thereforecriticizeseachin rum. As one might xpect,Hcgcl is critical ofprayer as placing roo muchcmphasis feelin8at the erpcnseoflhoughr and rriionslreflecon tion: 'lllt is only a movmcnt,o$'a'.t rhinkins, and so is devotion. Its ihinling as such is no mor thrn the cbaolicjingling ofbells, or a mist of warm incens. nusical lhinling thar does nor 8et as far as a lh. Notion, which would b thc sole. immarenr objecrivemode of lhought'(PS: lll). The devotccseeksro find communionwirh Cod by vidue ofbcing a 'purc hean t but rhe dvoleeseeks demonstmte ro hi! purity by declaring$at hc has not yet found Cod but is noncthelcss still dcvoledto the search.Devotion is thus the slruSgleof an .ntcrprisedoomedto failur'(PS: 132). Hesel thcn considersthe idcal of work, as the believe.lries to lcr!/c God through lrbour. Thc Unhrppy Consciousncss now has a mrlrndictory anitudeto the wofld on which il worls: on rhc one hand. mythitrg worldly has no signilicancc. whar marrcrsis rhc C(xt who as rtmds abo\ it; on the othcr hand.everflhing in lhe world is sanctificd as the expressionof (;od'r narure. Litcwisc. rhc Unhappy Cons(iousness als seesits own capac ies lor labour in I rwo-fold rvay: on lhe one hand if it can crcntclnyrhing usin! rhcm. n is only bccausc God allows it to do soi on thc orher hand. rl ilso sccs rhcsc captrcilies God-gi!'en.rnd so divinely ordrinrd. r'hLrs.lhough as t\,o.k 3ivcs lhc Unhappy Q)n\cr)u$r.ss irnf senseoi its uni(D wirh lhe UnchanSeable. lnorhcr scnsojr mnkesir l-cclmorc cut olT liom il: rn The faci ihat rhc un.hrnlcrblc consciousn.ss ,J tnoun.lt v.r.n,Lff rrs cmbodic(l hmr. while, on lhe othdr hnnd. rhc plnrcular indivrdtrxl .on\co||\nc\s sntr ,rd,rJ lfor rhc sinl. ic /{ri.J itself th. \rtrticlirnr of teing conscious irs t,..iol ot /,.r./.r.r. and nsigns thc csscnce ils acrionnot tr) rrscll but lo thc beyo.d. through thcselwo momentsof /., i'n,,r/ vtlr?/rr.&r of both pans. consciousncss does.of coursc.g{in a scnsc ofrri ^,w i th thc lJnchanseahle r his unit y is al r he But sametameaffccicd wirh di!rsion. is asain b.oken within irsc[ ond from n rhere emergesonce more rhe antilhesis of ihc unilersal and the individual.

92

THE O I A L E C T I C

OF T HE SUSIECT

T']E D IAL EC T C OF TH E SU SIEC T

The difiiculty, Hegelargues. that UnhappyConsciousness thal is sees ils hurnility here is false.for while ir trealslh world and its capac; ties as gifts from Cod fo. which it givesthanks.il als recoSnizes that theseSiRs are a sourceof pridefirl enjoymentfor ir: 'Conscious.ss feels itselfrhrcin as a panicular individual,and doesnor lel itselfbe decivedby its own seeming renunciation, rhe trurh ofthe marer lbr is that il has trol renounced itself (PS: ll4). From this senseof unworlhincss.llcgel moves on to the lhi.d r dealoi plnr rc rc e . h e rc rh e I n h a p ty (,rs crnurnei \ ri ei 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 an rbsolure beinS oflhcir own. Bolh withd.lw inlo thc; mcrc padicu hrity. which consciousncss scr upon rcducingto nolhingness (PS: is 135) In its.ttempts to purify itseli the Unh.ppy ( onscrousness tums its own body as a sourceof wenkness stiritual corruprion.ar on and nandrngin the say ofils allemplsto rise aboveils mereindividualiryi bLrr morc il lries to olercome its physicrllnrlurc. lhc morc thc body thc becomcsan obsessivc focus of dtlcntiorl Consciousness awareol irsell-asthi.\ udtul irttii.luul n tht rs nnimnl functions.Ihcsc drc no lonse. pcrfomcd nrrurdlly rnd withoul cmbarassment, mattc.s triiinS in thenrselleswhich !s c.nnot possess any impoltan.e or essenlialsignilicance tbr Sprrilr instead. since jl rs rn them thal lhe enemy releals ilsell rn his chlracterislicshrpe. thry are tulher thc objccl of serious cndcrvour.rnd bcconreprcciscly m{ttcrs (Jf lhc ulmosl inrpr hnc c . I h i s c n c n rl .h o s c \c r, rc n .$ s h i nrscl r n hi s dei e.t.and i i r l i rrn ! n s rl rc n tro i o n hrr' . l l r l i ol r l i cei ng il\ r ll r r o n rh , . rc rl l \ rc ,n r, s l i )r.\!r co l rct w i th hrnr. !nd li) r er e r \e e \ rr\e l l rs d c l l l c { l irn d . s rrc c rt the sametrmc thrs obt c c to l i rs c l i i )n s .In s l c rdo l b c rn g\n ncthi nScsscnri al s of i. lhc nr.{n.sl .hNtuLlcr. Insl.lrl ol bcrngr unilcnal. is lhe meresr l l) r ni. uh ' . s . h x tc h c rci ' rl ) t' p $ s d ' l l i l y coni i nedo i l s o$i sell and rt\ oNn l)eu) rcr('ns. u pcrsonrlitybroodingolcr irsclf. a\ $relchcd rs rl rs nnPolcrishcd. (P S : 1:15 6)

In going funher in this attemptat.educinS its paflicularity 'io the now Sivesup all freedom nolhrnSness'. Unhappy consciousness ofaction as well as all earthly goods,and puts them in the huds ofa 'ndiator or ninister [pnesr]', to decid for n how it shouldacl: This mediator.havinS a direcl .elationshipwith thc unchangeablc aeing. ministers by giving advice or what is risht. The action. sincc it follows rlpon the decision of someoneelse. ceases.as regards the doing or lhe nrl/i,ra ol il. to be ils own. Bul there is slill leti to lhe unessenlialconsciousness lhe 06r&/n?aspecl. viz. the lruitofits labour,and its enjoymenl. These.therefore.rl rcjectsas well, and Jnsl as il .cnouncesils ri1/, so it rcnounccs thc u.hluln:, il rcceivcd in work |nd cnjoymcnt . . . Through lhescmomenlsof sunender.Iirsl of its dght 1odccide for itsell: lhen ol-ils propeny and enloymenl,and iinall) lhroLrgh the posilive nromenlol pracrisingwhal il does it nol undersland. truly rnd complclelydcprivesilsclfoflhc con sciousness inner and outcr f.ccdom. oflhc aciurlily in which of conscidrsncss crisls rr ih.//: Il hls lhe ced!inly ol hrving truly di vestedtscl lol i rs / . andof havi g lum edr l\ iinDedir t e i sell- ' conseiousncss ! Thing. ink, an ,il,{ /i,. c\rslcnce. inlo |6 7) ( r l l eS clsrys l hl t hcrc thc LJnhlppyonseur \ r css eom cs o lccl , r has ochielcd genurne\ell-rcnuncinlidl. in t' tlrv rh $r\ not posrbl. prayer and worl llo{rv.r. illhough thc Indrvrdurlc.n lNkc lhr(Jugh undcrlhc sway ol lhc r stcphw ads unr!crs.l i l t h r "f r r ling hr r nscll pri cst. hi s i s nrcrcl yr rrtrd r n. loss ol scll, dnd $ docsnot r cllly l si S nN l synthcsiol uni \cr s. lr nd I ndi! idu! 1. lhe l. t lcr r s secnir s th. s as ncgrtcdby thc fonncr:- Ihc $m cnderol it s o\ n sill. r " I t df f r ( l. / dr lhe ol w i l l , i s norl Il kcnby i ( l o he i r pr inciplc posilr ve aspecr un'ver sal w i l l . si mi l arl y.i t\ gi !rng up ol possessions enloy'n. nthls only and nreani ng( PS: I llJ) . l hc \l rrr negatrve Al ihis pornt. Hcgel m.kes a ltunsilion lo lhc nc\l pln of the ehanges. lrom Pr.roft,r,l)&r. to Rer$n . whcrc the nood suddenly t l l kN my rcl i S i osi l yo.!l i onalislicopt inr ismf.legcl m akes his lr ansi' tii,n vcry quickly, in one prragruph.and il rs hard l. see how it is the nl('lnl () sorL (hc mighr undersrirnd lranslrionlhis way: once rl

94

I'
TIi E DIALECTIC O F IHE SUSIE{ I

has adoptedlhe pncst as a mediator,conscjousness now at leasr can conce'veofthe possibilityofblessedness. lhus can come to think and thal at least |ll prtn.?le its actions might bc recognizcdas those requll9rd aodrrlailed by Codi ir thcrefore no longer s.es ntc|+-ns y oul of{o$h wilhthe rationalorderlhd sovems ihc wi,ild. 'nheren ven though il still seessuch reconcitjatjon a!.a r"/ond'(pS: lj8). somelhinSit is bcsl to treat I)s a .hope'. But once it takes a further slep. and grves up thinking of this reconcitjalion out of reach.the as rat'onalisric sell-conlidcnce we tcn behind us with rhe Stoics can rctu . but lhis rime in a ncw and more.adicl}t fo.m. in which sel._ conscrousness !n individu!l .ecognizcs ns itselfin rhc world oiobjects, and so no longcr sets itself outsidethe rarionalordcr qua unjvc.sal: 'In this molemenl il has also bccome awarc of its rrilr wilh this Lnr \ er \ . r lr P s : L ra r.l r i , rh r\ r(n ($ e d ra rro n rtr\m ,;rm.l h(rup( rhJr of the nexl chapter.

Chapter

The dialectic of Reason

lPhenomenology, C. (AA.) Reason)

f,ationaligm and idealism

Wilh lhc movc from UDhappy ( onsciou{nessk, Rcason.the /r.rork,ro1,r&r rccapturesthe spirit or' opl i mrsm characl eri ni c .!liondlism . of ncssonce agajncomeslo look rt rhc $orld rs r thc. w hcrcn canbe al honre: N o { t hr t \ ell- eor ser ousr css i r R cr$n. i l s hrl henoncul ti! e r ehli( l( ) olhcnr css l ums roundnrl oa posrl i !crclNr r n' ( PSr llt ) ) lt er s, i hokl sthatthc w orl d i s rrl k)nxl.r Dr l! , no$ ser s , o ou, l i t rr.// rf l hi s r,l henrcss l\ ll. r s \ c hr ! c sccn. w hrl c f{ egelh r\el l srs u rrtr onr |lsl n t his scnsc. I hc $i s rl i ' conccn!r(l rl ' xl suel , r . nr lLsnr rrr shNld I r k. ils trop.r i bnn: ol herursc,he b clr . t cd. n eould cr sr ly bcconrcdinortcd. ln rhls s..tron- we rherelbrc find l l tgcl rnal ysi nShc shonconr ings r lit ier ent l ol kin. jsor ftrronal i sm. l ol -w hrchl rm o ur k) hc iDr dequ. r c xl and onc-srded. an unresolvedren\ior bctwccn th. carc as gori cs i ndi ,,l dual i ty un r \ chr lilv r em ains. ol .rr(l t{cgel opens the chirpler $1rh r discussionoi ,/.d/arr. which collapscsthc distltrctid betwecn thc 96

I
O IA LECTIC Of REA' ON TH E D IA LE C IIC OF R E A 9ON

subjectand the world, and so takes thoughlsand things to coincide Up lill now [self-consciousness] beenconcemedonly wirh has its independence frccdom.concemedto saveand maintain and ilself fo. ilselfar the exfEnseof the r!r/4 or of irs owD actualily. both ofwhich appeared il as rhe ngative its essence. ro of Bul as Reason. lssured of itsell it is at peacewith rhcm, and can endurerhcm; for it is cenain that it is itself reality. in thal evcrylhing actualis nonc other than itselfi its thi.king is fsclf di.cctly acruality, and lhus ih relarronship lhe lafter is that of ro idcrlism . . Illl discovcrs world astr new rcal {orld, which the rn rts pcrmrnence holds an inlcrest tbr it which p.cviously la) only in ils tr{nsiencyiibr the .Td/r'r.? ofthe sorld becomcs for sell-consciousncss one /ru/l rnd,r/.a?r.!r it is ccnlin ol ih cxpcriencinB only ilsclt therein. { P S : l 19 40) I lc gc l is c learl y y mp a l h c tito th e $ a ) i n * h i c h thi s i deati sm s c cnabtcs consciousncss escaprthc urgc lbr the rransccndcnr, the ncedro ro and 'negale the worldr 'Apprehending itseltin ihls wny. ir is as ifthe world had lbr it only now come rnlo beingi previouslyir did not undersland thc worldi ir desircdit and worked on il. withdrew from ir inro itsett and abolishedrl as rn cxistcnceon its own account. and its own seli qur consc'ousness bolh as consciousness otrl a\ consct)usness ils nolhingness (PS: l-19 .10).Idealismthcrcfo.c ol r c pr c s c nls k i n d o l .rd !a n c c : r i t. $ c h r!c our rati on!l i sl i c l i rh x u l r c s t ( t r e(lhr r I h c s u h i c c r i l l i i n d rh c w o rl d !e ecs!,D ,e rcau. In 1. () $ s o r ir r s r r r \ ( rc rtc d b l rh . n rb tc e l . !) rt i s e cfl rj n ol c\pcri cfci ng r \ l lhisl! n n r. h ,)$ c \.r. l l .g (l c \p rc s th . $Mknr\\cs ol r tuti o, t r r l\ ! r lhr l 1r I e srh ,\ l i ,rn r. h d . h i s r.rrrrrk s nrp]i .rtl y !r l o K dnt. $ i rcl |, r ht c r t r ( l s . h c l l rn g l h \ l i r\t .n trc r{ n re p { t s thc obi ectron mrdc l' |lr r r \ r s ehc lI n Si n rh .l te l i c c : n x m .l y .rh rt l h r i rdcrl i sti c ratronati sm docsrdr d,rr, lbr its poitn or nucnrprrr)txkc on boa.dother ponrls ly ol ! r r $. hur i, n p l v (l o S n x tre i rl rs s e rl s h rt IR easonls dl l re.| l i y' l i ( l) s : llll llc e ru s es c h c l l i n r l a c l c d l l c s c l s p hrl osophi eal mcrhod. $hcrcb) olhcr srlrdpoirts !rc gonc throLrgh ftsr. [r]he conscnnrsncss 98

which is this truth has rhis path behind it and has ibrgotten il. and omes the scene on tnu e./i4telyas Reasont otherwords,this Rcason in which comesimmedialelyon the scneappcaroonly the cerroinr! ^s lhat path bul of that truih .. . Thc idealismthal doesnot demonstrale too, a pure rrrcrtz which ltrrls of with this assertionis therefore, docs nol comprehend own seli nor can it make ilself comprehenits j bl e l o ol hers (P S i l 4l ). A secondcnlicis is morc technical.and is dirccrcdprinarily il ri Kant. althouSh cxtendsro lrichtctoo. This corcerDsKlnr's nrera, physicaldeductionin the ( itiquc ol Purc Rcason.||hereKanr derives his rableofcategoriesliorn a lable of logicalJudgements. Like Fichre rnd Schelling. llegel argues here lhlt this p.occdure is tho.oughly an unsntisfactory, oulrageon Scicncc {PS: 142).bcclusc il docs not thc neccssityof the categoriesas suchi but. he nally dcmonstrate claims. lhe atlempt by l_ichlelo derive them liom lhe absoluleego' is no more satislactory enlighlenrng. or Thr third criticism I{egel makesis perhrpslhc mosl imponnnt. rnd also finds rn ccho in the Prcircc, wh!.c hc chinrcd lhrl cvcry thing tums on 8raspingthe Truc. not only as 51,/,Jrn r, bur cqually .s S&n/(./ Thus, as we saw. whlle Hegel endorsesidc.'linn In v,r. scnse. is also cnrcial firr hlm lo cnsLrre thrs unitl docsnol rgrin u thar f!l l bncki nl o i ncn si nrpl i ci ty.nd docsnol dct iel r et ur lily it sclfir r r non .cl ual mdnncf (l ' S : l 0). l lcgcl . him s hcr . lhr l lhc Kr nli. n idcr l . ol' i ss hav. !i ol rted thi s constrr inr*ir h r h. r t $lt r h. l t hL cm pt incss thc subj ecl rcqui re\rhen'Io rcir lulLr eeI r nl'cr liod ol ne8. r lion. in i hc l i l rm ol Fi chl cs l a{/,)" ( c\ t cnt l inr t elus) or Kr nt s unknosrhl c l hi ng i n-i l sel f. l hrl thcr rr r li( Dr lir n endsut bcr nsconr pR) m $ rscdhr-rn undcrl yi ng s.etl i .i {n I(i'nrcrousnc$ l lirn {lcelafutor rs only lhis abnrnct cDrptr_ thfuscl hrr c!cryrhi ' rgi s / r \ r sr . |1t r t hc ccn{ir ly of bcing. ll rcalily is rt lirst lorlll lhc ptrrc calegory This R.x\or s'hi.h lirsl recognjTes nselr'1tr objecl tjnds expressio.1nthe empty rhc calismr!hrch graspi Rc{s,n only as il ,irsl comeson lhe scene: rnd fdnci cshnl by toi n linSout t he pur e m inc of consciousl ncssi n al l bci ng,l nd d. cld. nr 8dll t hingslo bc sensat ions or rdcas.il has demonslr.tcd thal nrure ol consciousness b. to

TFIE DIALECTIC

O F R ' A' ON

TIIE

D IA LE C TIC

complcte reality. lr is bound. rherelbre. be ar lhe samerimc to absoluteempiricism.for in ordcr to givc ri ing ro the empr\ 'mrne . r.e.lo gerhold ofl'JFerer.. with altns devctoped formu lations.its Reason requirescxrnneousimputs. which firsr is in ro bc found rhe,rrrdt i4 ofsnsarions and ideas. . . Thc pur. Reasonofrhrs idealism.in order ro rcachrhis.orher. which,s (xvzridl to il. and rhusis rhejr-tr"r. bul which ir docsnor hat. wilhin rt. as thercforethrown back by irs own setf on lo thrr knowinf \rbich is ,l,r a knowing of $har js truci in this way, ir londcmns ilscllol rts own knowledgcand !otition ro being ar Lrntruc kind ol knowing. and cannol gcl rway trum .meaning. and lrcrceivins. which lbr ir halc no trulh. tr is jnvotved in ! drrlct contradiclioni assens it csscnce bc a dultiry ofopposcd to l.rckirs.thc unn| ol uppetu"./r,,,,and cqurlty a frr,gl whcthcr thc lhins is called,in cxrraneousimptusc.or I' empiricat or scnsuous cnlrty, or the Thrng-in-irsct[ n stil rcm.rinsin pnncrplc lhe srmc. r.c. exrmneous thnt unrry. lo (pS: t,[4 5l Though cxtrcmclr-comprcssed, this rhnd crn;cisrnof Krnt and hrs succcssors highly signilicmr lir thc tighr it shcdson how Heg.t ,s $rnlcd his own idcllisric rarionatism bt undcrsrood. lo Ahhough hc doc\ not usc lhrs rcrminology hcr.. clscwherchc drsringuishes own his rdcxlistnlionr rhlr ol K.rnr by ca ins rhc lbnrr.r,nbsotLrtc ideatisn. !r d r hc lat lc r ' s u b i c c l i vie c .l i s m (E L \,{ 5 2 . p . ? t). nd i r i s cl earty d su bl. er i! c idc ! li s m rh l t h e rs c ri ri e i z i rrE t l hi s I)oi nr i n l hc a I'h.tunntnt'ltrg\ As tlegel seesit. KU in(l hrs $ h r c er r \ r n r unr b .c .u \c rh c y th ,trt l h rt rc u t ! rs j ntc rsi bl . ro .'!r\(!trr\trc\\ orl|n {' lar rs x lu\ r li)m irl]po\ld rpon it h\ rhc n nndi r r r t u s r nr. fi m c .l h i n S sn rh c D rs L l \.\. h i .h do nor h.\e rha i s li)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-onnin ordcr to b. ,ritcll'trhlc r,, consciousncss; he drni.r rh!r il is rrrt)r.r/ by the but sublccr,, rcnhty.:rg!!tU insleadUut il is utercnl in rcality irsl: so thot rhis fonD mcdiates belweenthc $bjcct on rhc one hand anrt the wor lr f or r hcot hc r.As l l e g e lp u ts r; l m a ., r4 r, )n th! phi htuphr o / r , r r l, 4. I lhou s h rlc o n ra i n ri c o n c i tru rn ,n rrspurcsr in essenrr.rrry.

the Lcluse ii approaches extemal[world] in lhe expcbtionthai this the samere.son as th. subjecldos (PW:208/PH:439). rill.mMy properis the docrrine(Mt the world har ide,alisrn h Hcgel.lhereforc. that is accessible thoughtand so can b 'broughl to ntional slructure I can conlciousns': thal is. consciousncss make ilself r,ff ofthis 5 srnrcture as it exists in thc *orld. Bul HeSel reJcls any ltion.l or as ldcrlism thattrealssuchraliodalstructurs mind-depndent mindHesel (like Plalr)snd Aristorlc)\ras a realisl: ln hnposd. this rspect. But aficr all. objectivily of thoughl. in Kani s sensc,is aga'n io a cert|in exrent subjcctive.Thoughts. according to Kanl, ahhough universal and nece$ary cateSories,dre dnh' dtlr by thoughls separdled an impassablc Sulffrorn the thing. as il llul lhc lrue objecdvny of cxists apart ftom our knowlcdSc. rhintinS meanslhat thc thou8hls.far from being mercly ours. ofthrnSs.and ofwhat' mustbc at rhe sametrmc thc rcll esscncc to us. e\'er is .rn object ( LL: l{lz. PP 67 8) Thus. in cnllins himselfan i.lcrlhr. llcscl inlcndcdto sisnal his allcgiancc kr a ccnain conccplull rculism. ralllcr lhrn l() nny Kanlirn mind: ofthc trorld on a conslruclive doclrincrcgrrd'n8 the dcpendnce rcfl('els {nd malcs known lhc on thir vie$. human conscr(Jusncss fundlmcnr.l conccptualorder irhercnl in thi gs rs thc\ .rc rn thcmscllcs. rulher thrn thrngs rs lhcy rrc consliluled by us. As thrs showt. llcgcl hcld rhrr shile subiec' in discussion thc Pr.,,,k,r,/,{r tilc idcrlisnr nrry apperr to hc rr oprr)n liJr thc Blionrlist because 'n dosn l he hr nr ! r hcl*ccn m r nd. nd $or ld, in f ict $nrc scnsc breaks rl thi s opl i on rs unnrbl c-!s rr hrclt \ r hs hr r icr dosn r m m edot cly_. *rrhour n(,pcr rcspr.l li)r thc nrnd'rndcPcrdc'rccol realrtv. so thxt *-cpr(.l problcmsre-cmerlr llcgcl\ rrgurncnl r thnl $hilc Knnllan idc,rhin mny lrent rhe ph.nomenxl $orld ir\ eonsritut.dby thc nnnd an.l hcncc xs lino$.blc. rr rr tilrccd to po\rt r nrind-indep.trdcnr noumcnrl rcll,ry b.).ond il. k) trr idc lhc nrind {ith som. conrenrlitr acri i rs consrnuti ng vi ty;bul thl s r cr lily is lhcn dccm cdunkno$. ble. N il lics ,r^rili,thc wodd as lhc suhjcctdclcrmincsit: This idcdlisnl bccruscit asserls the nh!!tu||1Notit,l is invol!cd ur rhis conlradiclir)n of Rcai)n 1(]b. lhe Truei .otrscqucnlly.rqlily dircctly comcs lo bc 101

100

I HE

O I A L E C T I C O T REA5 ON

for it a realiry lhar is just as much trdl rhat of Reason. u.h'te Rcasor rs at lhc sametrme supposcd be atl reatity.Tbis Reasonrcrnainsr to restless searchrng rnd in irs very searching declarcs lhai the sanst.!c t ' on of r ; { r , a r s a s h e e r p o s s i b i l i ty .(p S : 5 ). rm t4 Now, in claiming thal .[r]h;s ideaUsmrhercforebecomesrhc samc kind of sell-contrudictory ambiguity as Scepricjsm, (pS: l.+,1). Hegcl has been accused misrepresenling of Kanr,s posirion. and ol mrsundeBtanding the way in which Kanl wished ro dislinguisll betwcen dringsas lhc! appcrr to us ind .rhingsas they lre in them sc lles . F o. ex a mp l e i,t i s rrg u c d th rr l te g e t mi st.kenty nks rhl l thi K inr is c onr m il e dl o x tw o w o rtd s .a c e o u n tt ttri sdi sti ncl i on. .r o ratl rhan r sexkcr 'two aspect account.when ir is claimcd that lhc lallcr d{)es compromise redlin ! iew ofthe $ortd, or trexril assonlcho$ not a ' s ec ond at e. I t . c ma i n sa n o p e nq u c s l i o n h o wever. r . how l .arK ant.s posrrron can hc reconsrruclcd lhis wry. and nrdeedwhcther su.h iD r c c ons lr uc lidr s u l 6 c i e nllo c s c .p eIl c Sc l .s -u nd.menrat sgi vi ngs. is l mi ( f or r eler enc es d l i rn h e r rs c u s s i o n c c S re m t999: 255 9.) in d s,

t
! F

01 a Notion that which. tbr 'meaning and pcrceiving', is . Thingi i.e. it seeksto possess ihinghood lhe consciousness in only of ilsell Rcasonnow has.therefore,a unrversal rrrer.at in the tlorld. bccruseil is cenain of ils presence the world. or in rhal the *odd prcscnl to il is rational. ll sccks its 'olhea. knowrnglhar tbereinx possesses norhingbul itself: it sccksonly its ow. inlinrtude. ( PS: 145 6) A s w i l h theprevi ous scussion r dealislic. ionr lism . legcl s di oi r I ltlitude ro scienliUcrationalismis ambivalenl:on the onc hrnd. hc is lo sympathetic the mtionalislic spirit rhar drjves il. bul on lhe olher h.nd hc lhinks thar tfiis spirit hereatpeam iD a disrortedlbm. as all thc univcrsalcatcgories ld*s thrt il constructs too.bstract and and d.c arbilrary. lle lherefttrewrms thll r ccndin lick of dclclopmcnl in consciousness !,/ conceplionrl lhis stagcleadsit lo misun.lcrstrnd whar it nrernsro see irseli in the $orld: But even rl-Reason digs inro the l ery cnl rui l s hi nS sandop cr se\ er y lein in t hen so t hal it m ay ofl gush fonh to mccl i tscl l i l ui l l nol ! n. in r his ioy Lof lindingit sell presentin thingsl: il musl luvc comtlllcd ilsclf inwtrdlt b.lbrc il can expenence eonsummal i on it sclf ( PS: 1. 16)t.lcscl nr ! kcsclcNr l he ol lhal one imponrnt rcspccl rn which screnlilictutron!lsnr gocsNst.!y. is rhar in rryrng lo olercone lle \ubjcct-ccntcd ourl(r,l ol idQIsni (w hi ch rcdu..d the n.l cri rl w or ld kJ t h. sr ll) . it goc\ t i) o r ir r n t hr oliposilc dir.clion (rnd so rltcnrtts l() rcdu.. lh. {'lf r,) lhe material w orl d), $ thrl \e fi rvc hcrc . n cqur ll) onc siLlcd osilnD. t lcg. l f \ therei occonsi dcrs ()b\cr\ i n8 Rcr Rnr ic\ r sI hc nllur r l sor ld ( in ho\ the $hsecti on Obsc^nl l n, ,,1 \ r lur c ) . how r l ! ie$s ils. lf ! s l he consci dLrM.ss(i n n,bscet,,n r '( ) b: cNr r r o Sell- ( inr scusne\ s) . ol rrd ho$ i l ri t$s thc rcl xrnn b r t $ccn r hc lwo in t he c. nr i. ct r on ol' rnLIbody{ur l hc subsc.l i o r 'O bs. r ! ! lidrof llr c Rclar ion. lSell' '(onsci (N sncss ni nd k) i rs Imnrcdi . r cAcr ur lir y) . lhR) ughoulr f iis dis cussi on. cgcl s ri D ri s t()shos thr l whilc$. ! nuslr cspc. lh. lchicv. ll l mcnls ol lhc nrturil sci(nces.t!c shouldnol crlggcrrtc thcm. for thc sti sci enti fiourl ook l l l eal csl he ( c \ ion belscenunr vr r sllir ynd indic r !iduality uffesdvedi we therctirreshould nol lreal scienrilicmodels .nd exphnati ons i frhey 0l on ecxn pr ovideus $nlr . r pr oper .s wa) ol 101

ObservingReason
lrrustratcdby the scll,rmposcdIimirrtions ot idealsrrc r.rionatisn. consciousncss no!\ tnkesup ! r|ther diffcrenr ralion!tislic srdnce. onc thxt cmergedhinorically !s prn ol the scienltic rcvotutronin ponRcnaissance posr-Rcfonnat()n and Luropc. tn adoptingthis pcmpecri v e.c ons c r ous n cn o l vs c c s en a l u ra$ o rtd rs rcccssi blto rrl i onal ss rh t e In qur r yus r ng ob s e n a l to n n d e x p c n ,n e n l xmerhods. thrr cor_ N l so comc rc lcct .t homc in lhc wortd lhrourh rhe {' . . c s : li' l pu^ui l o fs .i d rti ti c k n o w tc d g !. } q h i ch rhc bchr!i ourot h n di\r ll|il\ r s{ r h! !n c d u n d c r { rc g o ri eo r !tri !rr s.t tr$\. Il .get cal ts c s .r rl' r \ l, r I ' " l ! ' r F . r,\r.n (\\ ' h .(n rn t k (,." ,I l) r e! t r r s lr " . rs p c r.e p l i o n n d ,a /rr-n 2 ,i o t \N ri (rs rspects . i N ol l. l1, r , , { .1 ' y ,rr1 h ' n r rh .,r.r,l i /.r/,r,./ /. ..,rFi r,,J.n(... hr r hc r e.e(N c i o rs re s s * .r ,J rrl o b s enrl i os l nd cxFri ,rd nr c nls Nle rtrrn Srn d p c rc c i v j n g , \h i c h prcvi oustyw ere ! I \ r ' r ' , . lL, l/ ., r\. . J rr,$ !r[,u h fd (J h ) rr. t ti r (!,n\.ror\nf\, ilsclll Rrnlnr \crs tu work to tno! the lrurh.m Und in the fo.nr 102

THE DlA ! E C T I C O f

REASON

IH E

D IA LE C l IC

OT R E A 5O

understanding ou.selvcs and the natu.al world. as this unresolled lcnsion mcansthll iD fnct reasonmusl .cmlin unsatisfedby this wrf of viet|ins $inss. Obseryation of Naturc Hegel begins his anllysis of how scientific rationalismregardsrhc natural wo.ld by $rgSeslinSthnt whilc thc official !llegiance oJ ObscrvinsRed$n is to rheprimacyol experience hencc1ocmpiri and cism, 11 dclually connderabl] more sophisticated ils ourlook lhdn ls in the sondpojnts that $ere consideredearlier in the Consciousness' chapler.both ir the cpislemoloSical level (in allowiDglhat there is no rconccplull givcn ) and !1 thc onlologicalle\cl (in allowing thal whal is obscrvcd is nor ! brre plnicuhr): [ObscNins Rcdsonl will . rexdily ldmit thrt ils concemis nol sholly !nd solcly *ith p..ccption. n a n d wr ll nol lel. e .g ..l h e p e rc e p ti o th a l th i s p c nkni fcl i cs rl ongsi dc th;s snull-box. passfor !n obsenalion. Whal rs pcrcei!ed should at l .. l{ hJ \c r hcis nr l i . J n f( .' l ., /r,,, r w //.1 n ro ' r \ ,, t,4^ prt tt,h!.r: (PS: 147).tscc.uscit rccognizcs thNttiings sharcuni!crsal propenie\. Obser!ing Reasonbcgins by rtl.nipling to describcthc world in !s m uc h det ail r s it c a n . a n d to c l .rs s i l i th i n s s i n to ki nds. by di sri n g u is hing r wee n s s e n ri a ln d i n e s s e n tra l p cni cs.n doi ng so, i t p ro bc e a l h o pes o lind ! ind i c N ti d r r i ts rrl b n a i i s ti cp i c l urc. shosi rg th!l t fo bJ whrl is sllient lo us is dlso sNli.nt lbf nrture itselll rf, ! sdy thal suggcslslhNl our cl.ssillcdlidrs rcllccl slructurcsirhererr ir lhlng\: '/)i//.r1r,/nk,!rc $rpposcd. mcrcly to ha\c rn cssrnti.l coDncctdi not * rr h c ognr r ion. l rl { , l o i e e o w i l h l h e c s s .n ti dl hu chN fuctcri stior cs rh , , r r s x r id oL, r ,l i ri rl \.y \rc rri \ \u p p o \e dr()re cordw i th N rturc \ . r ti Nn s r ( . f r r r ( l l o c \fr.$ (rrl \ Ih i s (PS l .1 r).()bseni ng R cN snr l i r ds nr t t ( lor r h rs o h rc .r\ L rv rr rrsrL \s i l i .x l i ors ,n sonl ei rcrs. .r\ $hc n n / ( ! , 1, ' !) $ ( l i n (lrh rrth . e l .\s rn (l r..rh * xh shi ch ccni , \ rnr nr iLl\( l lh( r \ . 1 \c \ r| :Il ri o rno r. rn tn h c r.r..l so th. fc.l l ures $c u \c r o r , l , ) ll lh (\e i ,, r,rl \ rn r,'l rn (l \. l l o \e \c r . l hi s N rgunrcnt l nr l h r f ulioni, l r \ t rre rc \ (n trrrrL .c o c \ | o r l l k e ()bscr!i ngR cN nr d \c r ) l, , r . . s r l ( nIc r l f\fl \ (frn r(o l x ' l r- ,f b o trn yand thc i norg!ni e \.i.n.es) ir linds ir hrkl n) xdo|r rnl *{r ol \rrblc and non-tirbilra^ chs s r li. r nn s Lh .n rc 104

Observation.which kepl them [i.e. its biological crtesoncs] properlyapartand belielcd lh.! rn lhem il had somethingtim abd settled.seesprinciplesovcrlappingone anolher.transitions developingiwhal il al lirst t(Fk to be absolulely and confusions else.and what n reckit separate, seescombinedwith somcthing So apan and sepamte. it rs oned to be in combirulion, it sees passive. trnbroken seltaamencss which cUngsto that observation just in ils most gencnl ofbeing. inelitably seesitself lormenled delerminalions e.g. of whal arc lhe .r'lktlrr?c of !n rnimal which .ob il ofevery detcmrndlron, or a plant by instances invlUdare univcrsrlily lo $hich it hrs risen,and reducc to lhe 'l !n obscnrtion and descriplionlvhich is dcvoid ol thought. ( PS: 150) thal though lhe scientistwishcs to !indicale. rdl'oHegcl suggcsrs nalisricoullook. hc cannot do so, becautehc is lom tutween on lhc one hand adotling an empi.ical lpproach. which allempls to group crerlurcs logether using therr mercly obser!ed simih.ilics (claws. reclh. crc.).and on thc other hand trying lo bise a systcmol nrtural trics lo treal rhescchd.ictcF kinds on lhesc sirrilNriticsithe scienhsr whcn lhe chaDgc.bililyrnd hetcrcgcnc'ly fixed and cssenlial, isricsas oullook This scicnlilic th thi ol -crearures.t sl cl el makes isim possiblc lersion bet\et rhc unilcrsrlly ol its i-undrmcntal thcreforelhcesa il ol and schenrc l hc pu r liculr t it r " lhc indlvidur ls lr ies cl assi fi crrory under lhc schcnic bul ihils to subsunle FlndinSilsell liu\lr.t.d b) thc rpprr.trr \lgucness trndarb'tntrusinsx concept t on ness i l s ul tcnpl sl o crl . nrlur . ! l lhe. i{Jint s ol t I{er *t r no$ r llenr pr s o nsc r bo\ c nr cr e of nxtLmlkrrds,Obs.ni ng (l l{, sr t 's1! lhoughtb} Nt lcnr plr ng r ') obscnrri or xnd des.ri fl i l nra Thc dif lieullyibr ( ) b\ c^r n8 go!.m fhe nonr cnr unco\crl hc hw s Lhar oi R c vrn. how e\cr.i s b kno\ ho$ k, r . concilca coDccp( r on ldws cm Pir ici5m Hcgcl i s uni l ersl rnd ncccssrr! $ilh ils r esidual sFxkshrreol rn i nsl i nelol R er \ D. by $hich h. m 'r n\ r hr r shil. rboLrl such cmpi.icisnrslnrlLl lcrd il tu lccl N llLnncan sccptrcrsnr f inds il conseiousncss such uni !.arl i l y i l nd nc.cssi l ) . nor r clhcicss hard ro doubrrhNrlaws rcnr.s.nl ho\ it is lhal things nrusrbe, gilcn lills. r s lnk' lar con'ciousncss n.l l hci r unde,l r-rni r urcs Thrl r sl( nr c 105

l'

TH O I A L E C I I C

O F RT A' ON

bccaurein its healincsstbe sronehas in and fo. itsetfrhal essenriNl jn relation1()the earrhwhjch is expressed thllins, {pS: 152). ()bserving Rcasonlhus tinds itselt-constnrctjng la$s lhat arc In'jreasjnSly gencrrl .nd rcmoled frcm ihe conffelcncss ol-rhe cxperrmentalsirualron.*hile irs conceptionof ! prope.ty becomcsmorc lbslracl. culmrnaljngin the norjon of matlers.,l,such positjve dnd ns ncsativeelcctricil), or hcar).wtich;;-nar obscNableplrticutars bur are tieorelical enriries whi"lirri"" i .rai", .,,rrr- r. unir/ffit. T.kis allo*s ()bserMngReason fnnr. laws rn r ()re lno mo.c lr,srracr ro a nd t ur c s ay W c l i n d .!s th c rru rh frh i s c x p e nmenti ng o consci ou$ ncss.t)r/1. L/n.. \hrch i\ ticcd ii1'nr sensuous being; we sce il rs I Nor,, which. whiLepr.senr in sens({rs heir8. opeturcs there inde_ .rnd. tcnd.rrl)' xnd trnrcilturncrt. whrtc inrnrcrsed ir. rs lic. ol-il. rnd iD ( P S t5 1 ) In ti n d i n gi l s c tfd rr{ n N w ayl i onr ernti ri I ' nr l) / , . Noli( in os m r n( l no' nr n rl i !n .O b w !i n S R e a n )n x i n san i nrportrnt nsi ghl j g rr(' ho* thr world ir.orporrtes slructurc\ rh.t can orrtyhe unco\.rcd hy t hought c r : LL \2 t2 . p p . l t .t). ( t k , wc v er .rtth o rShth i s i s a n i n rp o fl rn rtcssonl b. ObseN i ng Rc { s onlo lc r n. r i d o n c $ h i c h . o q s i t to l i r i turguni cnaturcj nto xn incrcasingly conrpterNndjlrisiying lhcorericrttirDrework.ir linds llsclf liustrulcd.s ir a(enrptst(, lrcat ,nolhcr pan ol the nrrural $orld In lawlik e t enns :n rn re l yl.i !i n g o rg a n i s m s . e r. . Ohscr!i ngR .an,n I{ {t lc r lpr slo lind lx$ s rh s rtl c x p t rn th c tl .l ru rc l -orgxni sns tcnn\ o in o l t hc r ren\ innr n l c n lw h rc hi t h o p e \ s i c rrb l . i t k, ctrssr,y . orgrn_ r\nr sI n eeol( ) t lrc lJ t rs (c g trk c l rc h s h h e c N usc rm l hc]-ti ve hcst i r $ rl. f ) llo$c v $. O b s e n i fg l .(c N s olnn d s rh rt rh csctr\s rrc nrcrc i r,r. ht r ons . $ hic hrp f' e .rt(Jh rtc n o u n d c r rg nc.L,ss,ry rl l l ronN l or r'rec . ht r . \ : , r r t l. i n rh r \()n o r' !c n c rrtrh e o No l e nri rnnrenrrtInU u e ner f r ot , os c d rh . b i )to s i s r(i t, ti c !rrrn rr. rc(oktrrg l o $h,ch b\ 'rn r r jx s h. l, ! r un! ro i l tr' l i r h rv c th e n rru e o t b j ,(l \.l hosebet(nrS i ng l t) s r r c r hx \ c r hc n n h n o r' ri s h .rn rml ts i r n o n hcrnl | ti tu(l cshr\e l hr ( l' I ' n, r \ l{ lh_ ! n ,l !) o n l tc g c l c o n n D rn rs : ls lu( h h$\ rrc s c .r .r I Std n c c(rd ,s p ta ) f,\cny $hi ch doc\ l r n' , r( lo t u\ r re e()th c m n n i fo trlrn c l v o r' o .8 .nj c\drure U csi dcs | l t h. t r . t t hr t (tr8 rn i rN a (u rci r l \ ti c c d { n c r n di \cst i rs tbnns ol r hc s c . hr tu rre ri s l i .s .n d o l | c e c s j r\, c vcrvw herc a pnscnrs 105

exceptrons suchlaws,or rulesaswc mighl call rhem.the chiG to aclerizatiohof the creatures1o which ihey do apply is so supericial that even the necssity the laws cannotbe other of than superficial.and amounlslo no more lh^n the Rteat inlL er.. of cnvi.onmcnlr and rhis does nor lcll us what docs and whnl docsnot slrictly belong1()rhis influcnce.Suchrehtions of 1o organisms the elemenrs [lhey lire in] cannotthereforcin tuct be called/rra. For, tiNily. the (drrr,rr ol such a relalion.as we s.w, does not exhauslthe rangeof organismsconcerned. and secondly, the sidesof lhc relalion lre mutually indifferentand cxpressno nccessity. ( PS: 155 ) No$. oncc Obscr!in8 Rcason rccognizcs lfirt lhcrc is no ncccs s!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 wry shlch rl now doesin /.,tu,ofc\plalning rhe nalureol rhe organisnr. d/ lcnns. Such explNnalions asstrnrclhal rhe org.nisnr has a /.)An purposc,inLI .cconnt for ils varidrs pn)p.dics by showing how thcv hcl pIhc or8!ni snr achi el cl hrl pur poscllcgcl r r gucs, 1o howc! cr . hxt t Obser!ing Rclson hrs an irl.?tl.[r/ modcl ol-lelcology.acco rng lo w hi ch i or rn orgl ni smto havc ! n cnd. r l nnr sleit hcrhr le lhll end g.r i nl enl i l ,nal l y. a conrci oLr\ l. or r r ust hr \ c t hr l cr d be\ l( t r lc( l as on i r bv $rne e\ternaldcsi gn cr*ho h. \ r ( hpr cd ir l{r his or her purposes. di tl i .ul ty i \. thrt () bs. ^ in! Rexnr r. r nr ol nr ikr . ilhcr Thc !i c$ l l t \i th nN rurdl orgori i ns. li, r t h. ) cr r \ cr r ( c1, " \ Nid1oh. \ c bc choscn thei rcnLl s. l c i l $e sa\ t hir lt h( ) ' r r c r s t hc) r r c heer usc $hi ( ,(, ( lL. i! r J . \ ! \ . ', r 'r u. J r\(\ h,!( \(L1.rl .,tr.1l .. u,l r ', ' '. 'l l hi s i der r()p(N i d. u\ rLl h Ii e\ f llir li, nr ( ) l r ht , t r gr nr sr 's nr r r t r e. Th,,\.$l i ' l e Ohse^i trN ' r.s(rireln( ^\ lf d8t : t hr t lhr or 8r t r r sn ws R sh) irs.lf k) b. r bring thrt /)/11f/, f\ ilscll. th.t ,r,Irrr\ ml hd! ktmtu\! i nl o i l scl l ' (l ' ]S 158). t thi rl s l hrl t hr sr r nol r c. lly l. lcol( ) 8i. r lb. hr ! i i(trtrh.c{usc rl is nol thc nrlrrlr,r ol lh. orsrnisnrk) nr trcsc^c ilscll. s) thrsobscnnrg conscrou$.s\ dde\ nol r ccogDi/ e lhr sbcr nS i. c in I rn rhc l l tcll hurrhcorgrni snr rcrsr o pr cser lc xsclll lhe Nolionol Fr d. or l harl he N oti dnol Fnd e\rsrsiusl hcr cand I n lhe t ir nnol r Thir g. and not cl scl h.tu' i n i rn. orh.! inr clliB. n. c lt m lkcs a dinincr nD 101

/
Dr aLE c c oF o,a r r(r rc o r R EA T o N

,tor.\l l,eca\ri

I I'I E

^ LA \.N

b er s c ( nr he \ olon o f L n d a n d h e rn l , / rt rea ' ttr' -presenarrnn. ,, d i, r inc r ion hic h r. n o n e rp s : t.| l s o rq i .l rnrng nea.onooe, ;/ i,i ."dbm as d purTG( not really recogni/erhe setr-preseruar f,rron i n r r inic r o r he r h i n F rr" e l r n re mJ l ,7 ; rh a j ont\ e\D tarn,l ne n ar u, L r heur s l n i \m h \a p p * t' " s o! rc m " \ 1" " ,,. a.r,prc,t l'/ " ro s en( pur po" e :,,a rrrJ p l tre \re ' 1t/ n rh e ,\\ rr,e rhenre.uh, " hr(h i n an un\ at is f ) r n ! rp l a n rro rv c o u y ' . ,6 1 , l 1,nr-r,, e rc ,. A , Her el pur " ir e ..(u h u c th e n,c s nur ^,r meret) l a .,.J e xlc m alr o nr r u. e ,a s i t rs w h c n I s",ll "r,l"2 j ;,i \ 1,,1' .u. * oot unty i n u rJ ( r r hir I m . , ) ( l i rh e m y s c l t.s rl l ., re e ,.' r, ti nd d,< ,,fl en .r n rd( . . , , r ir r i\ r m n l (rrrh e t." ' u ." tt' r l -s o ..,i | l ,,JFddn[(J h e r " u. ( r r r , J U.i . (o ' k re i , ro ,,' 1 ,,,,h ' dn' fr\e r.ofi l ( ],\ her b. r hJ r$ ( m i l h r c u re d i ' h,. . rnnrr,rr 't" 1. pen. /7 ." tr.^ " n,t rh r t $c I r t s - hr r le o x rs (' !q .rl p rtN ,r' ,,.tn .I m l .hr rtor,,hcttrL l (nf lJ r oNLL\ \ i. , r.r H (!rt .!,(s ,. j rde\r.s tuut , i ;.,!1 \ r oh\ r ou\ .tu f' Io n r,, r.rr.crt h c (.' ' . ..rr cF(t rhi nt, rhJ rO b. ( ^r nS R(:.,u n ,,n e r,r(.n n l tr,rr,r r.rr,,artrro.tr.,,r - rl rrl ( , , loF ! .ni h, hr r .r,l u e \n c rrl rrrt rl ' 1 ' .n r,!,, ,r,,r r.,tty.ounr. ,,.J r o, 1 , ' f r h. orrJ n r!n . rn d fc l c { :_ r,i . .h . . I .Lh1,t,,r(rt e\n.,. h{ ,n re ,n .,l ,(.r. rl r | / d (.,l .,- ,,r r-rrt nr.r u ( i. r . . r onr ldf h\J l I m,r-,' , R r, :., r1i f.rT!\c,.t frI-, _ rfr, . ,Onc1r ,{1,..,1 , s \ . s .. fJ n n ' .r rt,rt\ _, ,'l . . ur . ( \ . . h, r . r (.r1 rl ,. . ci r r e( l $ h r hc sc i e n ri fi cr.\o tu ri .' ; l i i n d . 1 r{ i d h!\c nrch an i n t c nt nr r r lm , dc l o r' l e l c o k )g y .o th :r, l rc h1 r,.1 Jj e.nr j usri ti edi n s ' rl tr ib! lir g r his \ i.\ \rrrh Ob s c ^ i rrrr/ ,1 1 1 l 1!r morhcr ans* er i 'r1 . , 1. . lr n. llr L. r l \ .,,' r,,\u r.rl l r' pt.,,.1,," .. ./rt,L .,tr 1.. , . , r ( 1. . R (.,n ' _ ' ,r ,,. r' \ \,,.r,r(t.,.1 i. , t -,r\.r..,1 ..r, |! ,r ,(.Li .(frl .rl 'Ir\ 1. r . , r 1 ' ,rt.IJ ' ,, .' . r' i { ! , r ' r , i t I rn h ' rt:. t\t\' . ,., t,, ' , ,rr..rrr,ng.,, ' ' , . I rl ,rr .,r rL ,.' ry l r. r | ,t I r rt.h q, l, l, , r I r(t(.,t.,1,. t r ' 1. ,1 ' ' , ' " t" " ,..' 1 * ,. '. - ! t rsgdcmi ngthc rer nr s(.) h\ ( ' \ , r g ll e r:,!i 8 ,{ \ h .c [ r].I .e t ul lir o. . $c \ i f(l (i N e ,r,c \ o f ,. , I n l l cgct.s ri mc l h rs . uc r ( i( lf r t iri e (lrs l h r c n p rc i I rrr tl ,y (nrcrnrng rtrc .rt. c ir \ . k , r r r n\ |lf , l i n n rrrk n rl l rrr :.j ]rnrrrofrhebod], .sN nd o sri rrur). t(' r nolhc , ) .ir r . bil | l \ i trre rn i n g rc d l 10 8

'l x l ,i l e l e o l 0 r. ,' n""']

TH E D IA L E C TIC OT R E A S ON

I
i

I
ll

(mcaninSthe capacityofthe orgrnism ro Srow and and reproduction reproducerrs tissuc).Thcsc capacities wre said to be locarcdin the neNous sysim,the muscular sysrcm.and the viscra respcrilcly. ObseninS Reasonlhereforesets aboul finding laws rhat relatethese capac'lres one anothe..and 1{)the parls ofthc body said to possess lo thesecrpncitics.Hegel then proceeds sho$'how difficrlt it is for 10 ObservingReason find any.eal law-like conelationsin rhis arca. to partly because sensibilily.initabiUly. and reproduction interrelatrd are functions. panly becauscit cannol mcaninStully apply quanlitalivc dcteminationsin trying to relatethesecapacitics. and partly because thc organism c.nnot really be di!ided into scpa.rlc anatomical synems: ln lhis way lhe idea ofa r& rn the cnseofo.ganic bcinS is al l ogel herosf {P S : l 6?). l l ege lt her ef or concludes in ils nudy l e lhat ol nature,Obser!ing Rcasoncrnnot find the tind of rationalsatisfaccannordo morethan ro makecleler rem.rks. lHlerc observrtioD indicaleintercslingconnccrioDs. make a tiierdly approach and lo lhe Nolion. But clercr,zrruris arc not r kno|lcdgc ol neces, sity, irtLtu\tinx conrectro s go no lunhcr lhrn bcing !f i ntcrcn. w hi l c rhe i ntere slis slill nolhingnr m t hln i m . r c subjcclivcopinnnr.bout Reason: rhc rr.a,//,k1r !virh which rnd the n i !i du{l rl l udcs k, t hc Not ion r s , r ehil( llile liie dlr ncss shrch i s ehi khsh l i l $rnls t o bc. or r s {r t t oslr l k) bl'l. ld I n i lr ( PS: 179 8( |) W e havethercl orc sccnl hc ( lxl. . t r e ol unr ! . r sr l xnd individual op.r.l i ng al seter.l l el el \ Ihanr ! hlhr s\ c( t r r r . r s O hscr ing Re. son hN stncd to bri ng the i r(l [r(l ur L Lnxier sonr cI nlcll8iblc schcm c of uni \crsrll dB s.bur w he.erhcsci x$\ hxlc r unr cdout lo bc k{r . r d hoc Jnd emply. to bc no nNru thrn nrcre .cgul,rrilresand conehlrons. (onscrcusncss conceplior ol lhc nrtur.l world lhus remainsone rn w hi ch uni !ersahl and i i !i duxlit ynr nd oppsed as calegor ies. y ind so it stlll nnable io lind rn nrrure rbc rntional structurcs thar will 's enrblc it lo fiel at home

109

T HE D A L E ( T I (

Of

R IASON

TH E OIA LE C T

bctweenthc Noijon of tind and bcingjbr-sctf and sctf_preservalnm. ., dislinction which is nonc (pS: 158).Because r)bservjnsReason doL, not rcally recognize self,prcservarion thc organism a purposf the oj as inlrinsic to the thing ilself (intemat teteotogy).ir onty explains lh. natureof lhe orglnisnr by appealingto how lhrr organismis adaplel lo sene pur?oses o!A,/. itselI(exlematlcteotogy). which rhenresutr! in an unsarisfying exphnaroryrccounl ofwhy rhe orsanismis ns n rs As l{egel purs n else$hc.er 'Thc norjon of purposcis nol mcrct! e\ t c m Nir o nnr urc ,.s i t i s w h e n I s a l rh a l s h e e n bearw oot onty i n or derlh. t I nr ay c k )th em y s c l i :Sr y rc ma fk s Ithl s ki nd rre ol i cn o nuije. rs lar exarnplc rheXcni.. t!hen rhc srsdonrol.(nd is ldmrrcd in bccauselle c.uscs cork rrccs k) grow rhat $e nrght hrvc horlte sk,tpcrs. herbsihar !e nrighrcure disordcrcdsiornrchs. and cinnrbrr thr r $c m ighlm r k e .u rs c l \c s rp(t_ N rI.\1 .1 5 2 .p | 96).(rbrxhetpfi rl L g ef e. x ldis c us s i i n rl l l e i rc ls !i c w s o n t!.tc o to g v. dcvri es l 9{ I o sec A n obv r ou s u e s rrob r.rs ei l rh i s p o i n t.is r/^ q n cS ell hi nks rhr t ( ) bs e6in8 R e .$ n o p c (rc s o n t) $ i th th i s i rt.D rj onrlm)dct ol . l c lc ohgv .s r c h r h .rl l d o c s o l l h i n kth n ts c tf U e l n {ri on rc!l t} -counl j i n rs { S oalol- r hcortrtn i rn .rn d h c n c ch e ti c \c srh r l tetcotogrert .\phnaridrs c.nnol bc intemrt (L g lhc liocrnD or purnoscof brrk on I l .e e is lo s t opil d.h y d rx l i n S) u r ru s l b c e \l e n [t ( c g. th. b or nurposc b rr l on I r c . s is n, \y . c l n l i u l s ro p si n o u r h o (tc s) on..nsscr eu o l c oor s e hinr tri c rl : a rrs .m c n ! \c i c n ri $ rn d trhi k\ofhcri r.(l bc th cr . l. d $r lh ihc s c rc n ri fi c ro tu ti (,r a c tu r| \, di d hl !c $r.h rn re rrir c r t r on.nr . l i n re l c o l o !\.!' th l Il c g .t tro u d sccnr rusti ti d j n xr r nt ' ! 1in! lhi\ \ ic $ $ rl h t)b s e n i n g R e rs o n B ul rnol hcr rnsseJ trlnr e\ nnr c ( li, ( .rl \ ro n r\' { )\c ,' rttrn tL J l )rc l n rrof t1. t,tttut,ttrl r t rt /,(r r r f r c \ . t ljr t ()l r\.r\rn ! R trn rn ti rl ,\ | thIert! ,\ri \l orel i ,Il rf( 1. ' ( , r n( lf s . l L rtr,\.ArL \,rs mr,trrt k rn (t\. rf(t-, (i ({ \ n(Jr l tl rr \ec rfi / e Lt \r r r ( 1. r\ r rI n ! o r' rh rrr\f. ((1 { tf\n c\ t98rh: 9) l, r l i! f r r , t).rl \ r,) u trl c rn rrtl rh . i r!.0 \ nr In tctcotogrcrl l .r, r \ . 1) b\ er \Lr j!l l (.s rn j!i ' .\ h .L ([t(j t(!rt r! l i , t i \\ th. S o!cnr]ng .cnr r l f ' o( c s \ . \ r n l fi (rtr.s I' l r\i f! x rj rn rr l sti Icg.t.\ tj m. th c { c s er c r ( lc il, l l e (ll \ rt,c .rtrU l ! In r \.n s i bi Irr- (nrcN ni nS rhc e r t r . r l! r r )r r r ns lf r In tri rf' rr!!rrtro u ts l rn r!til r(n nonc l ]!rl ol .1h.ho(j )ro. r f olh. r ) . lr r r hj l l \ tn j .rn j n ! th c e .fr.l \ tt) rcspon(l sl i nrutr). t() 108

t I

and reproduclion {meaningIhc cdpdcilyofthc orglnrsm lo grow and rcproduceils lissue).These capacrtics scrc slid 1o bc locatedin the ncrvous system,the muscular syslem.and the liscera respeclively. ObservingRcasontheretb.e sets about linding laws thal relnteihcsc capacities onc dnolhe.,and to lhe partsoflhe body said to possess lo thesecapacilies. llcgcl then procccdsto show how diuicuh it is for ObseBing Reasonlo lind nny red lis-like corclalioDs in this area. panly bec.usesensibility.irrilabiliry. and reproduclion inrerclated !.c funclions. partly becauseil cannoi meaningfully Ilpply qu!nti1|tivc detenninllionsin trying lo relrte lhesecapacilies. and panly because the organism cinnot rcally he divided into separaleanalomical sysl ems:In thi sw ay l hc i dc! of d / df in lhe caseolor gr nic beingis l osr' (P S : 167).Il eS clt her ef or c al together concludcsh{l in it s st udv r 01 natue. Obserung Reasoncannol lind lhe kind of ruliondl silisfic lHjerc obserlalioncannor(lo morc thln to nrakcclc\cr rcnu.ks, indi.rte interestin! cornectio|rs. and mrke x liiendly lpprodch lo thc Nolion. Bul .lc!er /frLr',t\ a.e nol u kno\lcdge ol ncccy srly. /rt./errj/r8 conncclrons go no tirnl'.r rhrn being ol' i ntcrcn. $hi l c thc i ntcrcstis st ill not hir S nu. t h. r n, r nr er e i ubi ccn\copi ni on rbout R cllnr ; ! nd t hc/ i'nlr l/ r r i\ $ilh which rhc i ndi !i dualrl i udes l o t hc Nor ur ir x. hr kllike liicndlincss $hrch i s chi l drsh i t $rfl \ lo h! . or r \ lr f t or c( il( ) hc, ! ! lid iD rl ( PS 170 $) ) W c hi \e l hereJi rr. sc.ri thc {t r Llcr l, ( unr lcAr l r nd indr vidur l o, opcr.l rnS .l scvcr.ll c\' .1\ thrugh t hr : \ f cr iin'. xs ( ) h: e^in|r l{er ( r n hrs l ri cd l () bri ng thc i ndi \i dur l ! nr l. r ! nr ir r t lI gible schcnr e ol' oni \ersrlhw s. bul w hercl hcseh$s hx! c r unr cdoul lo bc t oo ad hoc and enrpt). to be no morc rhrn nrcr. rcguhrnics and corclarions. ( onscroun' ess ,' concepri (D l rl r c r r r ur ul sor ld r nusr cn r ns onc r n w hi ch uni !ers.l rry and rndi ri d' r, l, r y r r ( l opposcd cat egor ics. \ ls r nd $ i r i s sti l l un.bl c to i i D d 1n nrt ur c r lr c r ut o) al st r uct ur es will t hat enrbl c i r l o l i cl i l homc.

109

f HE DI A L f C T I C

O F N EASON

TH E D IA L E C TIC OF R A 5OII

f he Obct''v.tlon

of Salt-Cons<i.rusn.5s

Having failed to lind any satisfactory role for lawsat the lcvel of inorganic and organic nalur,consciousness now tums upon ilself, and movcs from the obsenalion of datur ro the Observation of SlfCons.iousness in an ctfon ro find laws golFming the human nind. . llcgel bcgins by discussing anempt to trlat laws of logic as laws the of human thoughr. 8olcming the way in which we raen. lleSel argues thal althoughsuchlawsaremeanrto bc ncccsery and univenal. 'the way in which lhis form or conrcnt,rr..r.r^ itsll/ to ohsertution qua observulion giles il lhe characlcrofsomcrhin8 /,,/r4 someihing th al is 8n, . 7, i. e.a c o n l e nth a lm e re l y ,:r' PS : I8 l ), so al l that crn bc l l cslablishcdir how as .j matterof facr we ./., think, not why wc n,rr rhink thal way, or why wc lr,!Lr so $int ObscrvinSRcason thentums liom trying kr llnd hws SovcminS thc subjccl s thoughts, lryrng to lind lass golcming its rclions. and lo s arives al obs.Naiional psychology.As bcforc. it bcSinsby lrying to describcand classifypopleinto diffcren ypcs.but rt quickly linds thal this is un$lixfying. much less interesting crcn thrn enumeratrn8 the spccics ofinxeds. mosscs, etc. (PS: IE:t) ()bsc^ rng Reason lhcrefore bcgins k' li?m( psycholoSical laws instcad: ir . . seems now ro h,rvc u rational aim lDd to be engagcdin .r ncccssury (PS: ldilily 183).ObservinSRclson then looks for lints bctwccn how rbe indi(s vidual bchavcs:rnd socralen!ironmcnt.to dctcmrinchoB the laller rllccts thc lbnncr. llo$e\er. the.c is rlwrys,rn clcDrcntlhal drslorts this clltcl. nanrcly how thc individu.l hrnNcll choo\$ k) rcspondlo hrs.nlrft)nnr.nr. This liccdom possesscd rhc Ind'!idual mrkcs I b) nooscn\col nltcrrrptrbr psvchology cnnb|\h h$-Lle corclations r() h cr $c c n hc \ r \ I n $ h r.h In d rti d u a l b c h x \cx n d thrl nf,rrl .rcum, t s ninccr: ll lhc Ind't'durlenher a/l^, r ticc tlnv ro rhc nrclm o, the ncxlll sorld !|,,s'nB nr uponir. or clsc brcrks rt oti lnd iruns|brmsrt. 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 rhcreexist\ rhc irhs{,lulc porsrbrlityrhal whul rs srpposcdl() hale hs.l this influenceeo!kllust !s wrll nor have h a d r ( ( l, s l8. l 5 ) l l c Sc l c mp h a s i z el s a l th rsl r ccdommcansn i s h nol possiblcl(i $c thc indi!idual as dclcrnlincdby rheir $cial envi(n nr c nl. x llhou8h e rs h l p p y to a l l o $ th x t l i l l l hcscci rcumstances. h 11 0

way of thinking. cusloms,in gcneralthe stale of the world. had not bcen. lh.n of courselhe individual would not hav tcome what he is'(PS: 184)-The reasonis lhat while thc individual may choGc lo conform to lhat nvirodmenl. hc may also choos to rebel aSainsr it, so while this cnvimnne will have a rolc lo play in unde6irndinS him or her, what rolc that is will ukimrtely depddon lhe choicls mad by th individual, and theschoices lie bcyond the kinds of cxplanationoffered by lhe s{xirl psychologist.For Hegel, lherefore. is ObscBing Rcason hereonccagainopcralingwith a simplisticmodel ofthe.clation betweenthe individual and the universalqua habils. and customs, way of thinkinSalreadyro hand': 'On the onehand.Spirit rceiveslhese modes into itself . .i ahd. on the other hand. Spirit knows itself as sportaneously aclivc in hce of the'n. and in sinSlinS out from thm somethingfor ilslf. it follows its own inclinationsand desncs,making lhe object conform to r: in the lirst caseit behavcs ngativclytowardsitselfas an indrvidualrty: $ secondcase.ncgaIn tivcly towardsitslfas a universalbin8 lPS: ll32).obsNing Reason docs nor proFrly grasp this complex intcmlation. As Obsening ReMn can find no laws 8oleming its thoughlor acrrcns/r(' r?, or its rhoughrand acrkrnsrs rhcy relalr lo rhc world oulsrdc lhc subjecl. it now looks k) lind nrme $n of corftlalion bctwcln iis thoughtsor acions as mcnirl phcnomcnaqrrh rhc b(xly in which the mind bclonSs:il thcrclorc trr,vcs k) thl.r dbscrlatnn ol thc rcl ari on sel l --consci ousncss innDcdir r c u! lir v. in r hr ol n) ils dct lhird subsccli('n Obscrving R.xynr. In thtt suhscclion.tlc8cl luins on on l hc p{ .udo-sci enccs -phyloln( nv ( r hr ch r r t . nr plcdlo dr aw ol conelusn)ns rboul a person\ chxriercr lr(nn xnlknrlrcrl lcalurcs)ffd phrcnoll,ly {which anenrpr.'dto (lo rlrc \n.t. u\rn8 rhe rhapr ol thc slull). $hcn h)th of th.\! it,tlr'.,rh(\ hnd lonsrdc..rble popularitynl l h. l i m. l l cgel* rs w ri ti nS r( 'r ll $( t r lot J ( . Larr t erandJoseph tdoc (;al l rcspccl i \el y). egi nnur8 t l t l\ io8nonr y. llegcl accept sh. t $r B t wc ordinanly use a persons c\frc\!(nr rs r sly of Srusing lheir lhoughis or cmorlon!. rrcrrnrg rhc lorlr|cr rs ngns of rhc lattcr: but whcc.' physrcSnomy claims k, go hflond rhis and becomea propcr scicncc.is in making/'fzli. /t,rr hdLrr how pcoplc will behave thc on bnsisol rheir lmtonical fc{turLs, rnd in bcing prcpa.edto use such fealurcsro tell r personlbout thcir chrmclcr in ! way thal olerules

trl

TI ] E O I A L E C I I C

O F REA5 ON

TX E

D IA LTC TIC

OF R FA 9ON

the evidenc oflh.iractions andtheir own sell-knowledSe. a resulr. As this scienccis forcedlo treatcharacteFhns as hiddcndisposirions. i despratc manouvre rhat has no melhodological credibilily. In rhis onlext,Hcgcl approvingly quoresCeorSChrisrophLichrenberS, who had written a pamphlet criricizing Lavarer: lf anyon eid. ..You cenainly act like an honeslman, but I setrom your facelhar you de forcing youNelf to do e and are a rogue al hcad"l withour a doubl. every honcstfellow ro the end oftime. whcn lhus add.essed. reron will w it h a box on t he e n r' (s rP S: l 9 l ) llcgcl rhcn moveson ro , discussion ofphrcnolosy. which sees the oulcr as .n immediate expression ofrhc inncr. where rhc obvious placc for such cxprcssion occur is the skull. llegel lirst poinrs our to that it is dillicuh lbr thc phrenologist say whclhcr ir is rhe skutt rhat ro dctennrncs nalureofftc brainor the brninthll dclcrminesthe the shapc ofthc stullr bur evenrtlbrc is someson ot pr.-.nnblishcd harmony' bdween thc two. n is harderslill lo do {nything morc rhantind mere ltltistical comhtions btweenrhc shap.rndsrrr ot n p(Bon s head and rhcircharactcr behavrour. rnd whcrc rhc$ concl,rnons no more nre siSnilicanrrhan rhe corelations thar miShr cxisl bctweenrain and a housewrlcs warhday.The phrenologislclnnol usc rhcsccorretarions to makc mc n'nglul predictionsl iDstead rclcfls rgnin to ihe nonon hc of Lrnrcalircd dispos(rons. which allow hrm t0 nvoid nukinS such prcdicliotls in n wly rhar is nonethelcss scicntitically spurious (as spunousrs thr houscwitein Hegcl s cxrnrplc who claims rhrr today lhcrc a lcndrncy lo rain. becaulelodxy is r w shday.alrhoughlhis 's r. ndc nc y doc sno l i m p l y th .t rt a c tu l l l y !i // n i n ) ttcgct i s coni i dcnt th lt Rc r in $r ll c o m c to s c e th ro u g hth i s r)n o r' l bsurdri -.and i n d . r nS n) $' ll r r c o g n ' ,?th l r s c i c n o l i .rx r()n rl r!. (rnnot doJusti ce e to (rtr exJrrCrr) {L'll-determrn!non: lor I hc . r o( 1. rtr\rrn eo f rl l ,.o n s .r(rN R c rl nr $rl l r(j ccr our of r hrnd nr.h x \eicncc ofphddql\ rh\ orh.r oh{.^arion{l nr \ lr nc l or ' \c l l ' c o n s c i o u s e a s o n$ h r(h . hr\i r8 l l rai ned a R ( gl, ' r r p\ e n l h c .o g n rn rc ro c c s s . rs g rr\p cdrl unr rcl l i gcntl y p h rn r $dy r hr t rrk c sth c o u l e rl o b c rn c \frc s i on ol thc i nncr.. $ d lI J hf r t r l h c s rsc d rch e rec o n c c n rc $ i rh hti sLr i rssi dcsrhc ir { li! idur lit} l h rt i s c o rs c i o u s f i l s c l l , x n d l hc ubstracti on o ol 112

cilemalily that has bccomwholly a Zrina that innerbif,8of ro Spirit gnsped as a fi,(ednon-spirilualbcins. opposed such a bing. But Reason,in its role ofobservcr. haling rcach.d th'rs far. s.cms also to have rEachedit\ p.al. at which point it must abandon itselfand do a right-aboullum: for only whal is *holly bad ofchanging is implicitly cMrged wilh the immedialenecessily roundinlo its opposrle. ( PS:205 6) The riBhl-abouttum lhal Rcasrn now tlkcs is one we hale |.cn belore wiihin lhc dialeclic,namcly a movc f.om theory to prac_ ilself gocs liom obscning lhe world. lo seeints ticc, as consciousncss scicntilic ralionalismsecm lo wilhin iti the lintilationsol .! !n atsent ofthc subjccl lics in its capacityfor frec sell.how that thc cssence no* sels itsclf lpart fronr lhe &termi'i.tion. $ rhat consciousncss 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 catcSorywhich. in the coursc ofobsenalion. hasrun lhrouShlhc l;nn ol hcns is now [x)srtcd in 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 i s i /r.// l he E nd .l w h ich lr s {cli( r r r r nN. *hcr casin it { t t c of i dl obserl er t w as conc car e( l lly $ir h r hr ngs ( PS:: 0e) l l ctcl rh$ mo!es l i om ()b se^r r g Rcx\ o . \ ! hi. h hr \ ir und t h. p(' l {l tl sl :r.l i on mi sedby rhco r cr l. r lr ( r . neeki h. r llusor ! .t o r clr \ . R cr{ nr' l P s :l l ). \hi eh ho lt h r r \ l. . t r l t hlr . onscr o lo 1,,..1al hont nr lhc \,tr[l on(. rl \cc\ ho$ n5 purnoscscm b. fullillcd $nh;r rr. llcgcl nrlt.s cl.ar. t|lcrl:li,re.lhrtJUstas Obscr\m8 R.!!'n rcpcrts rl ! highcr lc!cl lhc oblccr_!.nlrcd oullNk ol ( tnscrolsn.ss.so Acli\ e Rc!!)n rqrcrts rl :r highcr letel lhc subjccl_ Jusl ccntrcdoulkxll ol Se11'(irnscrcu$ncss: as Rclson. ln lhe rolc oi ob\cncr. rcpealed.in lhc elcmcnl ol lhc crlc8ory, the movcmcnl perccplion.rnd lhe LJndcrslandof{ rrr nxlvr.rr. viz. scnsc-ccririnly, nU, so $ill Reason ngain itnr lhi()ugh thc dorble movcnrcnl ol 113

I HE

DIALECTIC

OI

iEA!ON

TIl E

O IA L E C Tl C OT R E A ' ON

self-consciousness. passove. from indpndence irs freedom' and into ( P S :2l l) . Looking backon this sction.somemay feel that Hegel\ stance with respclto Obsening Reasonrnust be modified.ei$er o' h;sror(Hegl'scriticismshereapply only ro the scienrificideas ical Srounds a.d theoriesofhis period,and reston an irnpoverishd piclurc ofwhat sc'encessuch as psycholosycan achieve).or on philosophicatones (Hegel here berraysaspectsof his Romanlic distrusrof science.d dislruslthll sccmsourdoted the modcm world). This may be soi bur in ;t could equrlly bc arSued(ct Maclntyre 1972a)rh lleSel's criticisms apply no less fundamentallyro cuncnt developmnts within broadlyphysicalisr approaches human bchaviour ro and mentatiry. and lhal llcgcl's positron is nol Romantic in any narow sense,but js mcrcly concemedlo hrghlight thc dimculrresof aficmptingio apply physicalisticexplanations acrosslhe boa.d. Thrs is { position which many todny (allhou8hnoi ol courseall) would seeas pcrfeclly reasonable,and they may well take our capacilyfor tiee aclion to show why it is inappropriale apply the physicalistic ro modcl ro rhe hurnanrenlm. in a way that is also ernphasizcd Hegel.Ofcourse. rhe debatchis by moved on lerms of its depth and sophisrication since Hegel s day. 'n and developmnrs science in ofwhich Hegelknewnothinshaveplayed lheir pan in this: but lheseissues remdin cudent.and Ilcgcl s Seneral p os it ion em ain s l i l e o p ti o nw rth i nth i s d i s c u ssi on r ! Active Reaion tf ugc l c ont inue s i s a n a l v s rs f h o w R e a s o f(riesk) nrakei tsetl -.rt h o hom c I n lhc w o rl d i n th i s s e c ti o na n d ttt nc\t (cnri ttcd.Thc r\.lLrrlr/ltldr ol Rrtion.l Sell-CinNciousn.ssTI(ugh Ic ()*n A c r ir ir y x . d I n d i \i d u { l i ry h rc hT a k e sl s c l l T o B e R ert In A nd l :or W l l r s c ll' ) I n. . . s id .ri n g rh c s cs e c ti o n s i.l i s i n rl ron.rr to take i nk) r ec ounr hc I nt n )d u e l o u .rc rmb l cto th e l i rs ro f rhcn (P S : 2l l t7). t p I legel nr nk c s . lcrr h c rcl h a l th c n rrl e g i e sh c c onsi dcB n l he resloi i tltis ch.rptcrare rll oncs that takc !s th.ir sunjng point .modem' n s s um pt lons u tl h c i n d i !i d u a l n n d i s p l a c ci n thesoci .l w orl d.rnd r bo h yr should be contrrstcd with the less individualist outlook of pre, modcrn(stecinc.rll) Crcck) dccounts ol-whrt ir mearFto be ar homc 114

havebeenshown in lh world . Only oncelhese'modm standpoints will consciousness to be inadquate 'tum back'to se how this prcmodm outlmk came to be losl (in the chapter on Spirir). Hegel's of differencesbetweenthe ancient characterization lhe fundarnental vital to the ofthe individual here is therefore rnd modemconceptions rcsl of his discussion.

Ancientsand modems
For the Geeks, in ttcgel's viw, it was rcceptedas ariomatic lhar the only way in which an indilidual cnn corne to lind praclicalsatrslaclion within lhe world is insjde the srateor /xrr.r. so the queslion of takento bc a s@ial qucssalisfaction the individual is imorediately tbr tion: only ifthe individual lives within a propcrly constitutedsocial frame*o* ca" he ever find himsclf ar homJ. Acconling ro tlegel. rhe (ireeks thereforchcld thal .econcilialionbelweenthe individual lnd the wo.ld could only bc achievedby an individual who lrved in .ccordancewilh the cuslomsand lradilions of a propedy constilulcd communif. tiegel outlinesthis view as tbllows: In d f.cc nalion. therefore.R$son rs in lrurh realized.lt is a p.csenri vi ng S pi ri l i n shich t he individt r llnol only linds ils l cssenual character. 1.e his un,lcNrl ind pd.li.uhr nrlurc. expressed. ard presenllo him in lhc li,rm of lhinshood,bul ls hinrsell this csscncc.rnd .lso hrs rexli/cd lhrt essennrlch.tracler.Thc wiscn mcn ol-tnliquily h!!e lhcrelire declaredlhal wilh t hc $i sdom and !i rl ue con\ r srin li! ing r n nccor dance cusl oms ofonc-s nul i on ( PS:: 1, 1) lhcm In i dopl i nSrhi sposi l i on, rhe $r sestm en of anliquuy showed scl vcsto bc thi nki ngal a trne belor et hc; ndividualhad lcdr nl lo di stnrgui sh hrmsel ltronr hi s sociolr ol. , . nd lo r cglr d him sclfr s nn dnd whcn thc di!rsions indcpcndentsource of morNl N:iscssmcnt. bclwccnselland $cicly had not bccn lell Ilcgelpresenlsa sketchol (one that he this p.crnodern social lifc in the prccedingparagraphs 77) : cl cl chbordtcs scw here: l E TW: 154 5. PH: 250

115

r
TH E D IA LE C IIC Of R E A 5ON

This ethical,l'drtrrcc. laken in its abstract univcrsality,is only law in lhe fom of rro"S,irlibut it is no less immed;atelyactual ret:co".r.iols"ejr. or it is crsmu. The single individual consciousnss, conversely, only this exisienl unit in so far as il is is aware of ihe universalconsciousness ils individuality as in its rBz being.sincewhat it doesand is. is the universl custom . . . Thcy r.c consciousof being these separatei.dependenr beinSsthrouShrhe sacrificeofthe;r particularity. and by having just as rhis rhis unrve6al Subslance lheir soul and essence. as universalagarnis rheir own doing as panicular individuals.or is lhe work rheyhrve produced. . . The /dror. oflhe iDdividual for his own rceds is just as much a sarisfaction ofrhe needsof olhe.s as of his own. and the satishctionot h;s own needshc obtains through the labour ol olhers. As the individual in his ,tdiriduul wofk ake^dy unlons(itluslr perlbnns . lr^r'lszl wort, so again he also performs thc univeNal wo.k as his .orr.n /r objccl;thc whole becomcs, d whole. his own work. as for which he sacrifices himselfandprecisely so doing receives in back liom ir his own self . . This unily ol beins-for-another or makrng oneselfa Thins, and of beins-for-scli this uni!crs!l Subs(ance. spcaks !rtv.^d1 1drar.d in thc customs ils rnd laws of its nation. 8ul this existent unchrngeableessenceis lhe exprcssionof the very individualiry which seemsopposedk) ili the lass pruclaim what each individu.rl is rnd docsi rhe jndi! idua lk n o w sl h c mn o t o n l y !s h i s u n i vcrsal .cl i vcthi ns obj hood. but cqudlly knows himsclf in thcm. o. kDows thcn as pdr r i. r lr r.,/ i n fi i so w n i n d i !i d u a l i tv ..rdi n cachol hi s l el knv . r liz . ns l n l h . u ri !e rs rl Sp ' ri t. l h e l e l n re. cnch ha\ onl y l he cljn,l'nl) ('l himsell: of finding in lhc rcrurl world nolhinS bul hinr s ell:h c i s rs c e d l i n o f rh e o l h c rsrs hc i s of hi mscl t I pc r c c i\ ci n !l l o fl h c m l h c fi c l th a l th .y k now thcmsel ves be lo only lhc s ci n d c p c n d e n le i n g s .l L rs ls l o nr IJ)ercerve them b a in thc li$ unirt {nh others rn such si\e thal. just lrs rhis unily erists tltroughme. so il erins thtuughrhe orhersloo I .c8!rd t hc n1 s n l y s c l lrn d my s e l fa sth c m . ! (P S :212 l 4)

here indicales.Hegel in many ways took it thal the As lhe conclusion Orcek socialworld was one in which lhe individual could lind himself '.t homc'. where eachhas only the certaintyofhimself. offinding in th. aclualworld nothins but himself. There is herno division ofthe ftom tl| individual from the customsof his sGiety, of sell-rnreresr interesl,of individual moral convictionsfiom the laws laid icniral tlesel (like many of his contempodown by the 2016: in lhis sense. nries) saw the lile of the citizcn in tilih-century Athens as a model for the sort ofharmony and .cconcillaijonhe thoughta properundcr .tlndins of rhe self and the $orld miShl p.ovide. (Cl Schiller 1967: ll.'l do nol underatc the adlanlageswhich the human racc loday. as considered a whole and seighed in rhe balanceol inrellecl.can boaslin the faceofwhal rs best in lhe nncienlworld. llul il hasto take ilselragarnn in |lp the challcDse senied ranks.and ler whole mcasure whoh. What individual Modem could sally fonh ind engage.man ryainst man, wilh an individual Alhenian for tho pri/e ol humdnity?' here,seetb.ncr I998: 1o For a helplul backSround Hegel s discussion l 7 125.) llowelcr. Ilesel makesclcdr !l this poinl thdt Rc!$n doesnol |nd cannotlny longer take this Grcck conceplionscriouslyin ils way of begins wilh ! concept ion lhc ofmaki ngi l scl f al home' l fo. Reir son lhal b) thc (neck\. ! conccpli()n frcc indi!idual that is nol recosniTed in thcir lrial world, hclwccn the lhcn lcrds to divisions nol apparent i ndi \durl andl hc cusknn\of sociclt . belscenlh. indi\ idur land t hc 8l ncrnlfood. and bcl $ecn t h. ir di\ idur l r nd r lt h$\ ol- lhc slalc Thu\, lionr this modcrn p.Npcclilc. eusrdD lnd rrldirion al)peir as hnnself wilhr hc n| orl rl l y rrbrrr!!/i the i ndi ri d ur lno lonscriLlcnlillc\ groupr rnd lhc lrNs cnaclcdf') the slrle chsh sith thc ofthc r0lcrcsts nrtrrl 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: R cn$n,,ra/ w i l hdruwliom lhis happysnt ei t br t hc lif e ol a tiee peopleis only in pnncipleo. immediatelythc /t?//rr ofan clhic,rlordcr. In other words, lhe ethical orde. exisls merely as as somerhins ai,?n . . [T]hc sinsle. individual conscrousness rr nalion, or n cxi sl si rnmedi al el iy thc. cal et hical dcr .or in lhe 's 111

I HE

DIALECTIC

Of

fiT A5 ON

C Of

R E A 50N

a solid unshaken lrusl in which Spiril hasnor, for thc indr!rdunl. rcsolled itsell inlo ils dhl/z.r nromenrs. thercfo.ehe is nol and awarc of hnnself as beins i pure indivrduality on his own account.llul once he has arrilcd dt this idea.as he musl. lhen this t n..rdl. unity with Spinl. lhc [merel ,lihta of himsclf in Sptrit. his trusl, is lost. Isolaredand on his own. n is he who is now lhe e s s e n c c .o l o n g e ru n i l e rs a lSpi ri r... In thus esti rbn lis hinsh i n rs e l... rh ei n d i !i d n a lh o sth ercby l phccd hi nrseli n opposirionrc rhc laws lnd custonrs. Thesearc regrrdcdas mere iderNh!\ing no absolure esscntidUly. abnracrlhcory $ithout dn any r lr li l y . $ h i l c h c a srh ' s p a n rc u l N r' l i s hi s ow n l !rng rruth. {P S :2l ,l l 5) 1ris !rral n' rccognizc. thcr.lbft'. thal lhc strur.gics rrk!'n up by Rcrson in th. ne\l l$o scclions. shos thut prrcticrl conscknrsnes\ llnd k) can srlrshclron In rhe qodd. arc on.s adoptcdby consciou$eis d/,{, lhis notn)nol rndjldurlily hrs cmerged: rhey!rc nor str.regics the 'iodcm G r c c k sr ould h rv c u n d c rs to o d . th c ) d e .h w i th suchi ssrcs.gri nd rs lhe bnckgurnd ol a socialconceplionthit Rcrson hirso\crlurncd N. w. as w c s h rl l s c c ,fl e g c l s c l so u t k ) s howthnrsuchi ndi \i d urlist sttulegics doomcdro hrlore. nnd lhxr som. prn ol rhe Crcck irc prclur. nrtrsl bc recovcrcd if $e arc ro lind th. kinrl ol hrnnony belwc c n c lf ! n (1s o fl d l h rnR c a s o n k c s t()h e l l ossi bl . N orcthel css. s tl hc r e as c ls c w h c ftU e g e lrs rl p N i n sto s trl s \ rhrr thc i ndi vi durl i strc lum lr k c n hy R c rn n i rs rrc \rl a b l c .n d p h g r $si l c l .or thoughrh. ( if c ek c r r i/ r n rv d s rr h o n rc ,r l h e * o rl d . thi s hnnron) rcmri ns unlhr r lir g i, n (lu n rc fe c l i l c ,h a s e d r a n u rq u .{ tnr)rng o recctl rn(eol lh. ! ) . r r l or l. r rn d o l -th c i n (l i \rrl u rls n l rc . $ rrhi n i t. !trtrl ! p()I]er eor ( . f lk n ol i rd !i d u x rt\ h rs c n N g rd te l l I, l {: \t:l ) Itrget rhere l( t r ehot c s l( Jsh (' s h o $ $ e c rn l .rn l i (n n rl i c \)errl con..ftnfl ot' lhc ( ir e. l\ r f r l l ro $ rh c l i ri l !(lrn d rv u l l i s l | . \tl xtegrcs R crson ol crr lr . I n' t n' r e( i u l i o n .s rth o u r,rf(h g o i n gb ri k n, rl i c (i reeks. \m. r hr nt $h, eh n r c m u d i !d u h s m h x s n rxrl c In)possi hl e. Ihus. alt hough ( i r.c k s w c rc N b l ek J b c a r h o n re n th. rorl d l r| $r\ lhc i lhr l $r s s r lis l l c l o r' -l i )r th c i r o * n trn c . rl i \ n ot !n N ns* erthnl c{r he s alr s h( t ( t ry ,r/ o $ n ti mc . w h c r r g ru r l c.degrccol i ndLl rduIn ! 1, $r r hr s c m crg c d()i rh e o l h c r h rn d . l tg rl \cl s oul k, sho$ thrl

havenol bccnible lo succeed. because nr cn dnswcrslothis queslron th.y hrvc all beenbasedon lhe division bctweenselfand societythal thrs Intllidualisl turn h.s set in plice; he lhereby setsthe conlext for h$ own atiemptto resohc lhis qucslionrn a way thal d.!ws on rol, lhcic lraditions.a middlc wry lhal will becomeclcdrcronce thc oneh.s hecn cxposed.i .r'lcdncssof individualislrcReason Pleasurc and Necessity oll l .gcl bcgi nshi s di scussi o n Acli! e Reasonwilh ! subscelion lnd Ncces$(y . where .onscidrsncssholds thal the 3nlrtlcd Plcasurc b(ri way k) nnkc itsell lccl at home in lhc wo.ld is nol by obeying rnd l rndi ti on(rs l he wiseslnr cn ol xnnqulr y held) .or by cu$torn ol underslNndins nalurc (as ()bsenrng Rcd$n .{qtririnE ! rheoretical hcldr. hut by lunring b lhc $orld rs a vehicle lir. plea{re Nndcnloy_ r||.nr: thc indMdtral ;s scnt oul rnlo rh. wodd by his own spiril b (P t o, * .1 hrshapp;ncss l i : 215) .I t r st her elbr chc lir sl cxpr cs$on lhe |ndrvrrlurlinicoullook xdopledhy Rerlnr: In {) l l f.s i t hr\ l i fi cd r t \ cll or l ol t hc clhiealSub( r ncc nt d tIc l funqui lbci ns ol -lhoLr gI lt ( J i1\ b. inS / , , t / / . , l ht t \ l. li x. h.hi rd l h. hw ofcu\l o f r t n . \ Lsr . nec. lh.knowlc( lgt quif . d r throush obsc^rl r . rn d lhcor J".r r 8r e\ slt udo$shi. h is I n rhc rer ol pr\nD g oul o l sight .lor lhe hr lcr a t ulhcrr kno$(' xnr sho l e(l 8e l { nD cl hLng s. ber ns- lit r - sell lxcr ur I lyar c olhcr rhn rhost ol rhi s s.l l :( on\ eioLr sils.I nncr d of r he her t cr r l) \(trrnt S ti ri l ol l hc u r r r ( Nxlr r ! ( 'l kr o$lcr lsc r r d r elio. r n ol \hrrh l hc l i cl i ng rn(i . , r t ( i) nr cnr indi\ i( iur l, r )xr c sr ill. d. ,i l her. hrs enl crc(l r,r il t h. St if il ol ( hc c. , 1h.r i, r {hi. h t r uc ot J(turl rl ) rs nrc.el vtl rrt h. ing $hieh is lhc r er t Ldlil! t hc nr li e(trr\c0sncs\.. . lt plur t gcsr h. r . t ; r c ink) lil. r nd ' i rnrl ,r,l ol gc\ro l hc tu11 f ur c in( ii! duxlill in xhieh il r f pet r N thc ( lS. lll l1r ) Rer st ' l l .r(l r,nrrft\rsrhi s oul l (r)k qr r h lhc posit or ol ( ) bscr v'ng t allL r ng( , lhc rh.r r!rL(.(l erl by mi ki ng reiir cnec o ( nr elhcs t : Nusl. u s r ,' rtr /.r/{ ,x2l ( l ?90).w h.r c hc t chocsNlcphislo wot uis n nlat ing f l ur { l \i ,N l c(l gc rnd theory.\ lt ho! 8h. . s wc hxr c scen. legcldr uNs
I 19

TNE O I A L E C T I C

OF RT ASON

TH E O A LE C I

a pn.nllel bel{ccn lhc openingoflhis sccli,)nand lhc orcnin8 oflhc 'Sell-( onscxrusncss scclion.and t{lks hcrc ol aD rmmedi te will or ,dhtrdl int'ul.r' which oblains srlislrcli{rn. shich is itself lhc 'ls conl.nt ol a lrcsh impulse ( PS: 215 )- tl esel nonrtheless distinguishcs Fausls pursu'l ol plcasure liom meredesrre:lbr his scxualrelation 'n silh Crctchcn.lhcrc rs a Sreater degrecol rccognnt)n. thc visioDol' lhc unity ol thr tulr Indcp.ndcnl scll'con.courncs\c\' (PS. llE) t lo$$c r . llc 8 (l $ rs g .n s th rt w h i l c l s u s t t.. l \ . hn(l ot-hedoni strc . r l( ic hm c nl k ' (,rc (e h c ns h c (i l l re m ri h l i )r h rnrr \chr.l e l br pl e. s ur c ,in r hf s c n s c i r ' rh e o b i e c tw h i c h In d Ni durl i ry th cxpcri ences a\ ., r ls . r ( 2. . hrs n o c o n tc n t(PS :2 l r)). $ $ h rlc h! ury w rnt l o entcr inlo I Dr t r ( .l h i (x l re l l l ro n s i l h h fr, h c l i l s hi s eonrnri l mcnl k) se!'klrr8plersurc nn'lns hc crnnot do s'l hc rcnm\ bound b) lhr o c ons c qlc nc csl h rstrc r w i l h \' l q ,h rs ro R l rhcrrhi r eon\rrrul l n8 . rI. ' l. s \ c nec ol r h c n l d r\rd u !| .p l c rs u re e c h rr! n o N rppcrrsa\ an al rer s (\re n tl ncecsi rvor l ar. trh,.l r ! ic onnr lnt on h rsh rp p ri e \s - l i n d o l scc'nsJCIl(' d.stoy hrn (ir.a-nusnc\\ rhu\ n|0cs lrom sccinSpl.! $hi ls ur er s I nlI \ k l o l k ' ' ..n ]l !x a s trn ' l rrs rl - \ o,l crhrns ch st.nd' rn lor c r as ar n' tt h c In d trrd o rl d l .rd s rrJh r\ do$rl i l l : Ihc d61rd./ . , . , , \ v r r t lc r c l n rch rs th . c h rrrc l c ro l l h L n rLrel !ncgi rl r\.-uncofi r. ,' l rn r\(r.., I\.,{ ' s h r.' ,IL i .\r,l ' r.,1| |r,.1,r.1' c,l r. \ ln( ll1, lr t iF , { L r ( l) S rll 0 1 l \ pr c c ls fhe Law of the Hea.t 1r r hc n. \ r \ uh \c rrr!)..rrrl l c L l th c t.r$ (i l rh c l l errr and l hc | ren1) ( n S t ll' ( ( nt r u ,r' . l (!c l r,n N k l c Ar l i ,n n ,,r j \r{ r{ r.!! rhxrrhj rl ' l ' ,l r r h. , \ . , n. \ |1 .,n .,1 r(!, rh ! fr,r,!n (l .i rl.Ir! rh.l l t,' r\nrl \ ' ' tr n r l, f . . , r . ( l r , ' I , f.,,, .,1 ,n1.,.r c !c " ,r\' ,rrl ,n cN t,l ' 1,,{j o r$r\ $1rl j r l. r h. r ( h\ r Lr n rfs.$ .t\ l ' ,rn rr\ r,tr, tl l .,r{ tr!. \(.l rn8 n) r mtr. hrsh ni, r \ 1. , 1 , r ( , .n n rl rt f..r,o rf o l ,' rh .' ,.rn ,L r ' tJnrrN rrng s.l l i r. , l hc r il r r r I l r l ll ,s -' l l ) Ih r, l i ,n n (j l ro rj \ !trsrr(\sho(l \ l hIl c!er\ r r dr \nt , , r l, , / ! r/ r. h . ,rh l (r,)l j n d l rrfI n e n h r r rrl rj or tl ,' \o h.cru\! t h. s o\ . r c r A nr((l rn l ! ()l rh e r d ,!(l u rl ,rn nh r\ scnsrbrhrv hr!e nor bc en r e( oS nr /fd rl i . i ri d r!i d u rlh u \ n o r h (e rLLN cd t() l i rl l ow thc hs ol lh( h( rrl . rftl $ \r.rd h N sb c c n { ,l J t.\ rcdl { ,l hc N w cr ofthe c hur c h r n{ l \ l rt(. rh rt 0 u th o .i trr;\. l L \,rr r' )(l hunun ordi n!n(( 120

This ibm ol conscrouslrhlehl is scplratedliom thchcrn (Psr 2221. s r.r (rhrch commenlalo.shrlc Sc erully asso!iated$ilh Rousscau l99ll thcrclbremainlainsthal thc world Lvoyard Vrcar:seeRousseau rl l. ruodnalplace. becnLrsc thrnts rt can brinA aboui a sdicly in thcy lre lmktns lor. oncc rlueh,rU hdividuls wrll find rhc h ppiness tLy rrc olbwcd to lsren ro whrr therrh$rls tell them. A.cordrnSto Hegcl, ho$c\cr.lhrs lbrm of.on\cnnsness lr.cs rtcrul drllicuhres l-irst.lhrs nErrl rclirmcr wrll bccomcrncrersrnSly .||cnllcti In the troccss ol conrlnrelrnghrs Ncial ptugr0mmt, Ns rl lsp.ct irt odds $rth lhc $cx on a uni\ersalizing r d gcnor.rlr/rn8 t Fnrul l nty of rhc hs ol l hc hcr a : t br in it s r eal'7ar n)rn r eccr vcd d|a lornr ol dn llllirmatrvcl /,!r,r,.nd rs no\! a !rit1,ad/ po*cr lor $ rhr(h rhi spl ai cul arhcdn i s ! n[ t lcr of indll] t r ence, lht r llhc ! r d; 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\\ conrcslo seellrrl ollrcrs nry rNt ,d.niili ihcms.l!.\ srlh lts *,c01 PioSrumrne. r\ it dtl Jusi tsa rlcntrl! wilh thc so.'ralp()Btlnnnc lhlt lhcadt ex'ri.d. lcndrngit b dopl r .ontradlchry dhnnsr\cncsr k, rhe b.arts ol olbcr\: of ' l ()l thLh do nol l i nd 1nrbrs.d nt cntr hc t ullilhnenl r hc h* ol / / '. 1/ h..nr, hut ruthcr th.t ol sonr.on. cl\.. rn(l. n.!.is.ly in aeeoidxncc hw thxt cuchsl[ll li l m $hrl rs lis li o*n h.'!n. rrth lhc uorvcrsol dFy trrn,r8rrnstthc rcrl rl j / i, 'hx\ \ f r L|l) .r uslr s ht lunr . d r Sr r sl dr l h3 \ th!\. i uslrs the ,ndr!( lur lil llr n lindr onh_ . r iS|( llxs. n, 's mcr l h. r N. l\ . s. of t o\ cJ l( ) his c\ ( ellcr r tr r r lf r ' h. hnl ! rl rch.rrl s ol l h{h i .,l (l cl rshbl e (l ' S l :.1) lhlnl. il r ln' e, r ncsr o lif d lhr l ot hct s nr\ 0l l l l \c rl nr rhr D 3nr.ol lhr . \ r \ lir g r t r r l. r .so r l cr r r nr , l( D8el r.r.( I thi r .(l .r i \ .h.n l (,l h ( \ , ll . 1 , t ( l\ r t lu! ls ll r , r r l r hr s{l! 'nc nl nur,l n onl ,rJn.c shteh r l lour d x' r r o. ( ct r . ( lr or lk{t l\ 10hc a {r | t.tt rtrrh,tr\ In \hrl h tr.r ( ! 't \ r r \ ( ^\ n s. lt kr $h'. h 'r . l'ng\ htrr xl\o n cpln{lc.t hcJ oftt(^.d k} thc u.,\..srl ||r t'rrr,(ulrr ol lhr \nht(l t(' lhal ordlunlt so(ld hr\c no consck,usne\\ llrcnr hul 1l l i rrd' th l hr\ ot uf if lr nec r cr ll) innr hr [ r r ! dbt r hL i\ -l t.r !rr{rrsne\\ ol rl l , rh rr s t hc lr s ol . ! $r " hcr n ( Ps: ll. l 5) . h. l { .(Ll * nh thcsceonl ndr elr or rts ldw ol lhe hc. n bceonr cs ' l h. l ttory ol scl l -coneqll tr her . ll. ! . l s m ) sl ob! Nu\ m odclr sKlr l Mrrn fnrn s(hrl l cr' \ pl rt th t ld't 'l\ 1. \ t . lhr s liinn ol . onsck'usncss ol inluencc . r r l bl, tr. i rrr.tl (,trN trracyrhtorr \ r . t nr r Blhc eor upr iDg

T HE D I A L E C T I C

O F REAsON

TH E OIA LE ' TIC

OF R E A S ON

social forcestbr the refusaloforheF ro.ioin ir rn irs brtllc aSainsr thc enablishmenl:'Tbe heart-lhrobfor lhe weliare ol humanirythereforc passesinto the ravihgs ot an insanc self,conceit.jnlo the fu.y of conscrousness toprcseNe'rselfIrom deslruclion . . 1ttherelbre spcaks of the universalordcr as . peruersron lhe law of lhe head and ils of hippiness. a perversion inlented by lanatiul pricsts. Slunonous dcsporsand rheir mrnions,who compensate lhemselves rheir own fo. degradilon by de-rradrng opprcssingothen. a perversionwhich and has lcd lo rhc nlmeless niisery of dcluded nrinkrnd (PS: 226). Abandonrng srance rhc ofan idealislicsocixl rclbrnrer.consciousness now comeslo \rcs othcrsin more cynrcallemrs,!s it s.es that jn lheir hc..ts. rhe beha!utr oforhcff is rLrled sclf-inlcrcst, by rnd that rhrsrs lhc way ol t h e w o d d : W h l l s c c m sl o b e p ubl i c,r./.r. thcn. i s thrs unrvcrsil strtc ofwar. in \fhrch cNchwr.ns what he cnn lbr hunsclt: e\ c c ulc s t us t rc cn th e i n d r!i d u l l i tyo f o th c rs o andesl nbl tshcs s ow n. hi whic h is equr l l yn u l l i ti c d n ru g h h c l c ti o n o forhers.l t rs the w ry rh l ol the world . rhe show ofan uDchangins cou6! thar is only ,&1rr kr bc { univ er s a l i l y . d s h o s c c o D tc n1 sra th e . l hccsscnccl css ay ot' rn t pl es lablis hing d n u l l l y rn gi n d i v i d u rl x i e stPS :227 U ). l hus,.hhough rn l s ol ] t he indi" iduN h e reIn s o l n cs e D s c c tsrh e u n i\ersul cr hnnscl l .he ma a shrrehi sconc.p ldoess o in I s r n p l i s ti c n n e f. s $ rn ri n Sth rt.l l nrust ol s hnt r s n 8 h t.l c !!i n g h i n r l () s e cn o th i n S rhc$orsl rl )l i l cs bur / t ior t hos . $ho ( i o n o t. lin Virtue and the Way of the Wo d llc gel r o\ m ^ c s t(' . d i s c u s s i oo l \In u c N n d th!' W r)ol thcW orl d. n t r h$( \ ir r Ue I n c { to s h o \rh o tr th rsc g o rs nfrn nor Lcrd r con\crousness 1o lc . l r l lr o rfc (i i \e n l l c !c l s c rrh c r to { t r\. j r!octl tronol rhc ( ir . . l, s . r l I nr !h rh c c \| c d .,t th rt h . ro 0 k l h r\ e R )m. symp.rhy srth lhc \ lr nr lt or n (x d o p l c db ! \' i rl u .i b u t b c .r rncsel cN rthrt 1l i \ I , r r lr r , \ c r s t rn 'o l rh a t\rrro n { rc tr.s fft.d ferhrps by rhc l l .rl ot' s hllle\ hur \ r r h fl L sh r\ l o q N h e re .$ h i .h { c .s rhepursurl ti nuc rs ol r n , r r ulk , / J i r,rc (l s o n rc th L n grrc x n b c { c h i cl cde!c. j n a corupt rh . s o. r c lv I n lhis $ ry . o n l h c n r e mc o n c c n l i (n rol \i rructhei ndi !i du!j err r.hi.!c ruc hrpfrncssrnd crn conrc kr licl dr honrc even In r $or ld r hNr s sti a ru l l l y rrd c th i c l l l y ro n rn (u nerhi nE thrr A nskrte. r 122

as for ci(amplc.would nol have acccpled. he look it fo. gruntedthal by th. cthic.l outlookoirhe individurl was shaped thal ofhis society) that as a .esult.while modern knightsofvinue prelend Hcgclargues to b b concemed reform thosecorruptedby the way ofthe world'. thcn bnllle lbr lhe good is really a sham.lD fact, it is hrrd for Vinue 1o b i{y whal this corruplion is supPoscd consistin. and il cnds up as io morclhancmpty rhetoric,for il cMnot really exPlainwhat rs wrong *hcn (as Bemffd Mandelille claimedin his Iirrlc d/ r/tdA.u. and as , I economyshowed)il appc!.s AddnrSrnithhld arguedlhll the caprtalist lhrl scll-inlereslcrn lcrd lo the comnrongood: 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 1tspurposcan .tctual good dl.cNdyin loo. it $as not diR. lcd dgr inn t he ci i sl .nc.. aonscquenr ly. acrual world ns ag!inst $nrclhing A(r.tdlh l,trcrt..t. nnd ' a8!i n( ! w ny ofl hc \o r ld Bul lhe lif t uc $c r r . 'considcr ing it hxs i l s bci ng outsi dcollhe spir it ur lsubnancc. is an unt cNl vi nuc,r vi nuc i n i mrg inaldr and n. m c only. whi. h lxckst ht l I l , r ' c, 'nR( r l( , n' h'ui s. l h F lL. , m l \uh.rfu,ud nr(nr ..' In( $r ! . 'f r hJ \ . ' hl r ' r , r 'F hr 'i , ' ir ht (\t(ri rnr( ' hrr l ,r)kcdrfor i l s real i tyis lhc r er lily ol lhc uni\ cr sr l.Wr r h t his r e\ l cs{ n i n mi nd.l he i dc r ol hr inging lt 'Sood I nr ( ) i\ lcn. . by is nrcrnsol l hc sN .ti l i ccol r ndir niur lilr " r br n( ioicd:lir r indi ! [l i l y 1s prcci scl ] lhe r clur liTin! ol r hr l cr isls onl] I n Ns pnncl pl e. thc [l e^eAr on. cr sc!lo bc r cgut d. d r Pcncr rnd son ol l hc good. Inr , l is in f uel r cr ll) lh. conr cAidr 01- r hc 8ood.0sr mereI' ]i d. In k)t n r clur l c\ r st dr . . : r h. m olcnr cnlol th. In(l i vi du!l i rv,s r.rl iq ol r hc r ui! . r sr l ( PS:ll. 1 5) b. I hr\. $hrl c V i nuesorks sxh r clcr r r nlit hesis l$ccn lhe individuNl lndr\;du{l a scll'lnrercstcd.bceruse1r s.ls thc .r trnuous !trd lhc j .rrl ol the eo nnuni l y ag0 nsl lhe good oi lhc I ndi! r dul, llcgcl inlcr|r||$c\ rharthls rcns on i liilure to rcLnowledselhe dialccticNl lhc hct$ccD l \o. w h er eby unileAalgoodcNnbc salislied thc nh| | .,n ( rhrnrrh thf fursui l ol -rndi !i dur lint cr cst s.( ll PR: 1199.p 2l- 1,'ln rnd rccipro.ity ol eork l|nd lhe srlisiitcrrln ol-necds. lhN,lctrf,lrr.. 123

I HT

DIALFCIIC

Of

RtA' OI!

IH E

O A LTC IIC

Of

R TA s ON

r!t.1r^!, r.rirr,r.J lums 1i'1'".onnhtn,t hBunls rh. sdnstadn,t ol th. Deeds .t.^\,'t ol els. By ! dioledrcal movemen( rhc pani. ular is medrated lhe univcrsnlso that cach individual. In elming. by and rrroducrnS. entoyinson his own accounryiir * rl. rherebyeam\ .rnd prodmes lbr rhe enioym.nr ol orhcrs.) In cxamining rhis sccrion.wc havc thcrcforc seen how Hegel presents rhrecstrndpotrrt\ lhat conrrndicr (ircck !icw that .wisdonr rhc and v'nue consistin livinS in accoi(iancc with the cuslomsof onc s nrlion . ind Instcudtry k, show how conscousncss can bc ar hom.' In r nDre lndividurlislic nunncr. hy seckinsplcasure.or lirllowins ' t hc hw of t h . h c n . o r b y c \c rc i i n g u n r cl l vi nue. w heree eh r k ndpor nt s e r* rl c ru Ap c c rr\c o l th . i n d t! i durl ut odds $i th the e\ i\ lr nB$eir l o rd c r.i n ! $ .| } "rh rr u l ri n rN rdudermi ncsthcm. s $. ! hr \ c s een lle g e l b e l i c !c drh rt $ l th l h c ri { o t modcmi ndr\rdu!t;snr *as ine! , r a h l c rt \i c $ \ d ! rh i s k rn l l rv o u cn)crgc conscrous th rs 'l ncsslflt'd ro tind a sr) ti) rDil. sclr"rr honrc sh.n rhr euson\ rnd lr r dr lr onshr t m rd c o n (i r..l c rh .rl L l c h n d l (\r rh.f.urhonr). bur t ir i5 eleart hlt l b r l l tg rl c o n \e h rs n .{ s n n r\rti nd:omc $r)- kr g,\c I k,le r() a drlTercnr I'nd dl soerrl tinLsort. rt rh. bllxn(c l(]srh! rhr\ I ltrnr to N ro hc rc\r,trcd. 'ndi{idurlrsnr Practical Reaion I i r hes c et il, n c h r!e b e (de ,!r\trl d rn f.ro ri \e rousncss s sci ^cl ql N hN dl t hr t ir s I ndr \rd u rl i n i . ru n r h r\ n ()tc frh tc (t r l () l i nd-w i sdonru.{ t \ r nue i on r h c ((!n rx r. th . p u rs u rto l tl c rl l e has m.r.l I l .d rr) ur hr f |it r . s s . rh c In $ o l l h c h c rn l rrs h .(o [e { l ,crnrcci t. \i n!. rnl hr \ he. n r . \ . rl .d r\ h r!l i In rn (i c (l \| l \rr,r In thc \ccri (nrN . $rtl h r r \ \ dr \ . us . e i r,rl (l In (1 ,\k t,h l\ \\h ,!l i trL .. 1rs.l lT,JB e Ire.rt rr \ , r l I ' r ll\ el l -. l l .!r .\rn ,rrf\ ,!rh (r { r\\ ,r \hrch nrod.nr,r(1,\ k t ur l, { n r t lf \ h .r(l r. r\.k l D r{ .r rrj l rre. ()t rhr\ krnd

lvllulrcs himsclfrn termsofhis works {i.c. hrs dccdslnd products), *hrh hc vrewsas an expresion ofhimscll.comrng lo know shar he r throuShwhat l|E can dol-Cans(iousnessmusl llcl mcrely in order expttcilrrt tr in othcr words,actron tut whatii is iflterl Eay becorne ofSpint as.,rr.nrlrr.5r . Accord'ngly. i.Imply the coming-lo-be .n indi!idual cnnnotknow wharhe [rc.lly] is until hL hrs rnadchimsell r actron (P S : : : 10) ln t his wny. il m ightnppcar hal . r.rl i ty through ih. Indivrduirlwould allow himscll to bc lndscd on thc basisol h's ar r.l ro \i bul rn l acl i l l l cts ol scll- expr ession c ! 1e*cd as uniquc. md cqLol l yvrl uabl c: l l w oukl only bc pur down xs x bdd wot k by | .onrtlrirrs ruficclion. lvhich. howcvcr. is ln iLIlc rllirir. since !l na t(E r bcyonJl hc csscnl rul t u. i'of t h. "or k. which ir lo bc r \ ell: crprcs$on ol- rhc Indi!idu.lily. rnd ir rl l,x'ls li)r und dctnrnds (' mcrhtl ]8 $. no onel no$s \hr l lPS ll l) I hr \ I nnnolcons. ious el n r\ thus rdoprsr non rudscnr cnt rar lr ludc( shr . h lor \ t cr l99lll l ). .l l l 5 chnns modcl l .don l lcr der '\h, r r one, sn)x: r . csult of shr ch 's lc0n ht.s up rn rtt'ludc ol l(,yous \cll'rllirnrrltnr Ih$cl i ' rL. l ..l i ng\ of cuhxr r or . oi lr n) cnr r lur . or . cpcnt xnee \ rh rh,rscl h.rout ofthe c I or r llr hnr \ od ol t hr nS r enr \I ioh l nrntl qhi ch rm!8r es r , , , x. r l r f r l ln r , r ! / / shr eh r r c (l i l l crcnt i onr l hc.ngl trr l nr t ur col r hc r t ( |\ ( i[ l r nd r l'enet m l l cxrryrngl ^rr i t i ndr. r cr l $on( l \ \ hir r . \ ! r r r r . r hnrr hc lndl or' \i (i url doc:- !nrl $hrl c\ cr h. r f I cn\ r ( , hr ir . r hil lr . hr { {lonc l i rtrrsclrnd h. i \ l hxl hif r sclllllc. xr t hr \ . ( r r l\ t h. ( onsci( t r Nl: llor n lhc f r Shr ol' ffss ol l h. si nU l c l rrh lcr er . r , , / , , r . , / / lhc Lndr r r ( lm l. i nro thc d!!l ighl ol lhe t r ( sf I l t,(){\i hi l i t! l hcr.l i )rc. knorrtg rhdl r n lr r \ r elr ir l $, ) r kl h( ! r f lir idn( 'lhr r g cl \. hul rr\ u,rr! $i th hr f \ . lli in t r r l\ r he ee, lr , r l\ ( n hr nr sclf l n rhel nnh o1l hrr $orld. , ir r , Vr 1r , "r ' t , t l\ r \ t , ht r t \ r u. ll) S: l1: I {, l ,i rhconc hrnd-rhr' ' ndr\rdur ls \ ehcD, e 1\ ! he\ , s s, , r . r ilr \ r slr . . (!r rh. othrr hr\ s.n\. or 'hr m \ cll r hr r hc lt cls .' rl posihl! hc htld n!.'n{r hrtn. \o lhll hc cln $!t norhrnt h. docs cln rhrk oll rll lhc \troh!!l alen.r'on 11.hrt {} lur c\pcncnc.d. and !.. hun\(l l rs -!n ab$l ure m r t r li$knr ol r n( l! ( lu! lr ly r nd hei. g' rP S l l l r 125

! ' i

fhe Spi.itual Animal Kingdom I n r hc n. \ r \ u h .t.rk n r te n rs m rtr(rl h .n rrrl c d thc S pfl MI {nrntl K , ngdonr nd I)..r . (tr rh ! N l .l rL rti Itn r(t t t\cl fr cg.t .one(te^ r ir lilpodr nr r \I' c .r o t rh r\rr1 !rrk l " rl r{ r.ru n ' .\ hreh rhrrrhcstrht.cr rs 124

TH E D IA LE C IIC

OT R E A 5ON

ll( F ( lJ rF u c ' . h ,' $ u !r' . rh rr th rrF \J ' r 1 ',rr\:JIi ' l rctor) J' thr) r h w ' rl \ rr. r, anNJ r I hc d i fl i (u l r) h th J r(o n r(i ' ,u s n c \i n,h thrr I ''\ rh un\ r ahl(hr m,,1 \L l f-(\l l re s { o nh e c a u \( (} f \r\N $hi l L' rr(hrng(\. I , whil\ l lh( { ln i l n a n L e o l rh e w o rt h o p (n x\ rhc,nl (nrel ari on,t l('lonsc'oui ' othcrs. so lhrl rl\ work now secmsk) sr.Ddxgrrnsl 'r: ncss ts lhus m.dc.sarc in ils work ol th. dnrrr.rii ofu,illing an.l nchievrnS.bclsccn cnd and mcnn!. rtrd. rgirn. bctwe.n this innrr naiur cin r l\ c n l rrc r)a n d re a l i ryl rs e l l :ro l o trth.si s$hi ch i n gcncnl in. lud( ss it h rn rt rl i ec o n ti .g e n e y l i l \ re rtr) n(l ,s: 215).IacedFrth o t hr s! nt r lh. s rsc o n s .ro u s n en o $ rn c sk ) g l ri rntcc . ss thari t $1l l be sel l lhoughl ol by olhcrs bv nr.kirg $trc it crn hc rssocirrcd with whrrc \ c r r s lhc c u rc n l -h i 8 l h i n g o r' n tl c r i n h | n(I..s l hcn i t know si l $r ll he t h( t rrg ho l i s h o n e n. T h i \ ' h o n c \ ty rs. hoscl cr. ! grcnl l ht r nr bt r g. llc i n d rl L rl N i l l rr! t(, s i r\ h c r\ trn ol rhi s$onh$hrl c !\ pn, t lr r c \ c LI h c h u \ d o n en .rh ' .9 . b r rs \e n ursl l i r rr l casthc hrs stnnuhl.rl odrL'rs. \\.s nor . posrkrj k, do t'n\rh'ng (e!(n rhouel, or 'n h. \ x nr ( d k ) ) . o r h v c l .i mrn gc r.d rt l a r th n r!\ h. hxsnor done Thi { hur r hugqt r r e l l ! h .e o m .\ rp p rrc n t t(! o th c r{.$l o s.. th.t th.' urdl \ ir l! $l lr r \ a\ { E L a tc d rm \c l l \rrh th .rr tr)t.e r nrcr![ ro l { \)k good h t hc r r e! c \ : l l l In d ,\rd u n l \ u \ c o n r! r. \. ctrr hl l l oentrcl l tu one th 'n r ndlh. r . r s r r rl r.r x l l i i (l rl i N \cl l -punoti on l r r\. lhc n. equr llt r (l ..c tl i o n o l o n rs rl l rn rl i ,l ol hcrsrr' i l rs trcrcrd.(l rhrl trhrl onc rs (on..rncd \!ith is th. ',r,///,? ul ltuhJ uh,n 4 c or s c i( \ r s nc \s rl o p c n su l i r $ rb te (l ftl l c r so(nrl .rrns thrl ol hcrs lh hunr r L( r r gl | l c l l c \ 1 0 l i c \h l ! n o u rc (i rn rr k. l nl w N ntk) bus\ trrl r hf r N. l\ . \ $, rh rr.rfd rh e \ l .rn r rh ,r,r rh rl D(fi \kl url l hrlhc. kr). r! . ( r . r D. r l s , r h rh e \u h rtfri D .rl tr. ro r r\ !n r,/r(!,. hur r\ h,\ rn, illr r ' t l' \ l.l ) .l ,i \o u \ ' .l l x l l i o n rrj (n r ! \ h.!.i 1.\ l rrnni drc(l th i, nr !t ) ( " \ ! r { r \ .\n rf rj n ( iin\ j( i L ,\n .\r l h (n (o n !\ rL ' ,rr..t,r 1,rh.A$ rl l l rrnr.rt' Jr. ' h ,n (\f.(r n, [c(f rhr\ k] i N { l r' I n r li. r . Lllrr h ,q l . rn rh x rrr f,u rr()r rf ln \ ' ( lo, , , q ,r rl ' rr rh c n ,.,rr( ,In h.rnd r\ (,nr(l hrn! unr \ d\ r l lll' . n ' rre ' In h rn tl s l .," !r. l ,\ ! L.h rhr r\ /r.t,{' r\ thc , { / r , , r t ) l lh. \r' (l .rn d rrrd m l .n d o r rl l i n rtr!i (l url s $hosc acrn ,\ r r r r r r l( dr r lc /l ,' ,rrf,\, o r i s r " m rl l c r In h rn{ l nrl N suchonl } rs l\ r hc r c lnn ol rd (/r x n d .r.,rv rk ,: l h c c s s c f.c* hi .h i s thc cssenc. ol r ll ber nr \ . ! r / r,tn l u l .trrk r l l l r r\ rh. uni \crs.l $hi ch h.\ 126

b6rr! only rs lhis aclion (n all and c!ch. rnd a r.d/n]. in lhe llcl thal knows il l(, hc ris own indivrdualrealily ,tn /urt{urlr consciousness comcslo recog' .||d lhc rcrlxy of al! (PS:15l l) As conscrcusness ||rc rhlt lL\ Prcjccts lbm prn ol tr wrder cnlerprise.tl no lonSer rrccumbs to lhc sell-rcsrrdrnSlcaknrsrcsof the Spirilual Antmal I,rntdotn. and insteadcomes lt) *"c rrr rls acrronsa moml PUrPose. n|hcr lhxn tht merc cxpressrnr ol sclt that comcs lion.rcnlr\e ol \ Thus w hrt i s obj .el i i )r eons( iousnc\h. s lhc signih. r nec Truci n ir un(l il is drlldfrl,ir'lr', in lhe scnsclhrt rt hcing lhc e\i sl s rnd rs rul hori l .r lr ! .in r r r d lir r it scll I l is lhc dhv) / r / r ' s ' n[rl cr $ h.nd . w heh r {) knlgersullds liont lhc 0nlr t h. srol (cnrrnl ! l nd i r\ rrul h.hcl$ccnr r nr \ ( r s! lr nd r t dn iduil. hcl"cen l nuqarscnd i r\ rl ol i l t. hur $hos. c\ r \ lcn. . is r hc r 1l/ t , r r n( l t h. r el"n oi -sel t-.onsel rr r cs I hr s n r lct in hlnd d,1,4 ^ lhr fttu,r/ ,r/,\,,4 r': .,nil (.tr\(xr^rcss oI n a lhc .//,, !1 ll'S: l5l 1)

Aeaton and motalitY In thrs $uy, l l cgcl nukcs l h. r r r r sr lr onli( nn r . t ion \ l) ljn it s \ . lr _ ,.rpr!sur. ti) nrxal.!xi{{r. rr !rli!!u lo lLrllil ctlncll !!Dosc\. ,\l sccsro Ft. r l ( lr lli( ull! in s. llr f g ( nr lliJ. . 1 nr ! r ll! . tl trl ,f( \((trsrress L r hr l or n tr l cs rhc cssunrtr,,nr l cr ( 1, , , r 1, \ r t lur cm \ . c li'r hr n'\ . ll 'llll . \ lr e\ \ c\ r h. e\ r \ r cr . t ( 'r \ * hrr r\,rghr.rnd bch.\c,tcc of t t |n! ) th( l .r$ \rl hrn rl scl l r' l ol l f s' \ \ r r kj R. r nn' I no\ s r nnnf dr r lc
N hi t r. fl l hl .!nd good Jrrl ,^ rl l i ,{ \\ l hc l d$ Inrnr.rl rrl !l \' \o r!l

Jr . | . l n$ $ \rl nl l or rr rmnr(d , r r cl\r \ r t \ r ) ' d, r t cr ll: - t hh r \ r r ghr d lx$ Ih. h\ \ .rt ,/r,1,?xtr,rrc. rnd. o(trco\cr. lhr\ nrrrrful.tr t,ril er l h( l rN r\ l he mrttcr rn hx . r l r l\ . ll lill! ( l st lh sr gnlh( r nr m t . nl hr lh, lreons( ! ) u{nc\ \ { lh! \ inr lr r lt nc( tl \ ,15\r l l egcl thcn $rgg.\t s |R!nF. rl thnks it c:rn d.c c llos lo ict In I nrl1rculxr\rlurlron ny \ scl r cenxrn l_ct dcr rr t ( l unr r cr s. llv r lxl nr f ll nr lcs orqtl t edn$hrng i mn.di rl rlt how l( ) bcht r lc.r ulcs hkf liver vont l | hrh { rl l l cl l rt N Ihl n, ttl l l hc rrul h. or ' lo\ . t hl ncr ghh( r ! s t hl{'ll'. sh. t c r l 127

THE O I A L E C T '

OF REASON

TH E D A LE C TIC

OT R E A s ON

appearslh.l lhcse imperrtr\cs in themselves providc guid.nce litr aclion. Hegcllrgucs rharthrs rs nol thc casc. however, bccluscwhether I should act in ! ccnain way in I cedain situationis not somclhinSI can dcrenninelmmedirlcly by consultlngrulcsofthis sod: tbr in flct lhcy .cquire tirriherqullilicdtion ifthey are to provide us wilh propcl gur danc e. th i s q u n l i l l c rti o n k e sd e te mi i ni ng and md thc.i ght acti on harderthrn Rcason lirn thought,so thar in panrcularcascsrheserutes ma) nol help us Nr!ll. Fnr e\ample. s ilh regardto the rulc Lv.ryone oughrll) r c ll (h c l ru rh. Il .8 e l a rg u c s a l rh i scannor th mern .Lvcrvon. oughtlo s Ny a l e v c r c yb c l i c v e. b e c n u sp c opl .nr3ybel i e!r l hi nS s sh th c lhal rrc fNls.t hul il we modify thc rule lo lr\eryon. oughr kJ lcll thc lr Lr lh l- whx l t h c ! s a r i s l ru c . th c n a s m y b cl i el l rrc cl cxrl \ ti l hbl e. r \ I . r nn. r bc \ u rc i r r p a n i c u lr s rl u rl i ()n h .th $ I sh(ul dsrl rnythi rg w or nol And. srlh rcgNrd1o thc rulc Lolc thr. trerghbour th)rs.tl'. ds llc g. l & guc sl h a rIh i so rl y l . d s l o r So o d!.t i {m i l l k,!c nry nci gh, bour ' inr . llig e n rl y . rh rl i s . d o rl ri n g sl o r h in th!t ure In hi s rcrl Inlcrests. nol.jtrslin hi5 rnlercns{s t happcnk, scc lh.m. bec usc rhcn nr ! r c l( ' n r s n o t n u c h ,ro re l h N nr s c l l -i rd ul C cncc nry pu.l . Il ul on t hen. bc lore , c fm b l e D rs l h rl i n d p l n i c !h r dse nry n.i ghbours ns th rcrl inlfrc\ls wrll in lirct bc hatull() dct.nnin., $ thrl rhc rulc {hef pr opc f lydc ! rl o p e l d o .s n o r re .l l v f' ro ri d c n . $i th muchgui drn... and l( \ ) k sr ! t h $ rrrfr). l h u s ,rs th e s c u \c s ll ){. thc i (1$ l hrt dcrcr e s nr nr ngiow r o rc t ri g h rl y s t rc q u rrs fo rh rn { mtrc thrn gra\prn8 a ru i,i$ sell--e!idcnl Rtr.l rules has rum.d our (' bc troblcn tic ( i) ns c r o u s n cc o n ti n !e so b c l i c !. tl u t tl rr rndr! duN l i srrc l i cc ss l i sti ol R$nn' er n h c m rd f ro $ o rk . h o \$ c r. n o rbecrusc ous N ftl \rri nr l. s nnl. t h. n l h l re l i o n.rs ! t{ )(l c l c n n rn c. bccrusc i ndr\kl hur thc ur lo( s n( ' rhn \e r,,,e l vo n th .s . tu l c \. h u l (rD i rnc.(l l tf' l ) | tn).e , hr r r l- l( ir ' r ( ' h 1 \re r (!r\ t(i n r.rl . s rrc h i si L e (!on\ cthi .rl l r- rnrti cd: rr. l r hr r r es r \ r h. K n n rrrrrc s r r' u n i \c r{ x l i /rh L l L r!. r o {hcrc thc subi !' cl rsks hr n) s t r il r hcn u \rn ro l h i sre r([ c rn b c .o n ..i \ed ot or w i l l .d rs r u,Ill r c r s r l lx $ ( n, $ h r.h .\c r\t e re l c (l (c l l K rn t (i MM..1: l r.1l l ). In rhc s ubs . c lk r r nr ' l { c r{ )n .s l .n rn l r I r$ \' . l l c !c l .ri trci l l l }drscusscs t rhr r llc m bv l{ c rs o f () tk ,\i d c th .l n d r!i d u rl { rth r sry ol del cnni ni rrS r hc eonr c nr n rn Ir!. rn d n r o i l i rs r e ri l i q ue ol ofrhi s pan ol K rnri xn c lhic \ . lk Nc ! . r, * l i rl .l l e g c l s w c l l k n o $ r rl l ack on rh..l bnnrti sm' Nnd . ninline\s . fth c Krn rtn p o s i l i (nh .s .( !nrccdrrn. Lthrs tcl i o r 128

ollx.rseold: nxtrcover.lhc exactnalurcoflhc tllack is nol ersy to pin sel .b$n, Fniculndy whcn the discussionin the Pr.t,r'?trdft)af 's .lon8sitlcotherlreahents oflhc issucin the Nalunl Li$ cssayand NL: 79 u5andPR:Nl15. pp.162 l) . ti c I' hi | ' torht t)l R i qhttsac 'Ihe most slmighlforwn aay ol lakinS t{cgel s criilque is lo in t .c hi m s cl ai mi ngthal l he u nllesalizabilit yesl it selfis enr Pt y. tl|Gicnsc lh.t elcry mxxrnrcan passlhc 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 Pracliceol' Frrrsc-kecprng rclrs on Frlicipanls leeping thci. woi(i. and thc Inrfir l(,n ol propcrty dc|cnds on panictprnts tcspeclinglhe ruk's of lhr on ow ncrshrp). l hi s !i c$ Il egel is ar Suing l lhe m axr nrof lhcsc anons,?, hc uni vcrsrl i /tdt!r lhouldif iicult y.I kr weler ,I lcgcl never .(tl|llllt {tiscu\srslhc r\sue in lhis $ry: lhtrl rs, hc n.vcr argue\ rhar in {hcr e lo l l or crnntl c)t()nri si ng coul dconlinuc li, ncr r on r \ ir unt , on .vcryoN lrcd.or tlut fnf.ny couklcont,nueto c\ist in I sl,rld whcrc tvcryorrc \lolc lionr cv.rlonc cl$. so lhrl il sccms lhal lhis wNv ol' Lhn8 l l cgcl s.ri ti quc i \ l oo si. r pl'sr r . . t r N oncrl r.l crs. c!cn rl fl egcl is inlcq, r eled\ t 'll( ^r r ng hr l Rr nc nurnD s ernnol hc ufi !crsrl izcd.r nd lhu\ r s r c. cPlin! lhr l ir ' t his t r.q.thc l csl i \ nol cnpry, hc cr n r l\ o b! 'inr . qr r . t cdr s sx) _, r ghr l l hr. rn rl \el l i \ i nsul l i .i .nl i n hclnnr g! s ( lct cm ine ho$ $t shoul{t h.htr!( ti ,r {r dA , nccdl o be r ( ) ld$h! r l \ oul( l hc N'( g l( Jxcl I n In r .| r(l x trr\ rs t(Jundcnni l el hc if st r lut r onDLlue\ li( nt t hr sn f ner . .nd r,' r,n// l cn (o1-conr 'idl. r r nr r . r nlell u\ / t ur l I hus ( k, u\ c I X dnl ri r e\rnrtl c: ei l K xnr ( I r f R. 5: t . ll) . $hr l. I l. g. l doe\ r ( 'l {rnri rtd shcrhcr,trnol l h. l ccpr ng, ) l ( it n, , ir s \ oull und. n"if r r hc hc r| l r| | i utrr t)l p(,1)cr1\. rl oei co, N( t t r \ ! h. t h. r Kr nl cr f 8i! . r n) l nr.rr, r,' \h(i $ rhrr r $orl d {r r hour f nJNnv sot r L( lir l r nl nf l ol t lhNr k n,.' lr.\r- $hi ch N rhrts sLr ggcsr s hc r houghr his llnhcr r ssue ftt,,,r(l \trnc sorl ol rrs$.J ( ( ll Sol( Dor r ! ( ) 81:5ll. I i\ ll] r l'ar $hr l rnr' \,fl l crknr \ho$\. rt nr) st . is lhr l r ccnI r n innit ut i, nl. ch. (o uld nol b. nr sr Nincd. r cn I c. nr m Sr ,tr(r trrr\rnrt.csl r' noscs, on ol depends Fkri h/c(l p.nrerpl . Il ut $trcly lhe qocsr ion sle! lir t g qx.\nl urtr ol pf llr t c Pf t ) f cr ly. ) ot l hc Insl i l ulr o l ti ,\ 1n(l cc(lhc er\e rhr t f lcgcl- sdiseu\ ! , r ol p( , Pcny nr tlx I'hn rrtnt)t:t rfrl el\cNh.rc sccnrs lacu\td prn[rrlY on the

(
IHT DIALECIIC OF REAJON 'HE OIA LE C T]C OI R E A ' ON

dilllcully ol usingx lolm,rl ten of non-conr rcr ro rell us whcthcl rrd l()n the ir\tilutit)r o! pnrpeny is 10 be preltncd k) th r ol non-propcny. rathe.lhan dn whcthera tunt' Iikc depost-kccpinS can be unrleF salrzcd.llcgcl cltumsthnt iflhe tesi oi non-conr ictrcn se aplly i\ rrd to sec whcthcrrhcrcrs somc son ofdr.lcclrcal lrnsion In the ponl|on. lhen bolh prcpcnr ard non-propcnvrru .onrradrck,ry:for. a sysrenl ot cdmnrn oun.r{lnn Invol\es a s}srcu ol iltrrnbolion rccordinSt() need {rn Nhrch c!s. {onr. ger morc thrn orhcrs) .rnd disrriburron . c . or d' ng k J .q u rl rr) (i n $ h rc h .a s c n l l 8 c rl hc sxnrct, $h1l cu sysrcnr of t r iv dt c pR ' p e n y l o h c s ! tc n s l o n d \!.e n r thrnghcl on!i D go a rn b l indi! idull { i r w h i (h c n \c i t d o c s nt n r| ttc rh os rh.rr poss.ssron rr oi all; c t \ ot hcrs ) (l Ih rl i n l i i !i d u rl l c c l i n gthcy l rc j usl onc rmongn rn (n r naDf I n( lr ! rd u rl s * h rc h c a s ei t d o c s ) (h l he dl her hand.l l eg.l sals. rhcrc x nothrns/rrr.t/r conrra{hekrrvrr Lllhcr srsrcm: so lhis ,/4. k r nd01r . \ t i n g ,\ rtrc o n .l u s i \. h .n a \l rd l ,) (l ch\Lri !cd,cr o erth(r $ ( inr { .q u .,rrl \. I' k )I' rn \ r\ i u \t r\.' u e l , .' l l roondeonrrl drer o' r r \ k -!ro t4 -rl \: .h c o n trG \ rthrn rhcs.l $o onn.\cd. .x rl : ( lr c o rtrrd L .k tr\ k n n .n t5 l i R fi \ L J rrl ,r\xnd unl \.rsrl i N & n n o (l cs c Nh o l th L s e .rc n n rn rl e n c s s$ h rr rhoLrght rs \t fl .. rs ol pf t ) n c y (tr n o n l h p c n \. s rth o u l(rtl i( rngthenrl i rrl hcr.s xs i v , , / ) / r' rsl h c o tl ' .r. I c j s n o rs e l l -c o ntrr(I.t(trv hc cnl cri on I ot h$ $h L e R (n n r l )o s $ s .s $ rrh r) l $l l l i t\ .\e rv crsccqurl l ! h $c ll. r n d i \ l h u : In l i (t n o .ri tc rn rr rl l (P S rl 5()) \ . \ . r lr h .u !h l l c l c l m\ I\ n L Ir rl rrrI r.\r,' l ,r({ -!onrrl drcrron , \ I n! . n( l! \ , \. \h .r rr (o n r.s rr r\ f0r (l fnr rhl r rh( n\ { eh l! ! nj tf\l rrL n j ,r\rrr\o l re tro n {k r l .n r! rr\trl ut(nr\r\ on. thc K . nr , nn i! ( , 1 r..l o h rg (d k , n ri k c (o n rn r.nrrr,tr\on l l cl ct hr\. : o! ! . \ t c ( l r h rr rl j \ \$ .h r1r.q u rru db e (ru \c(' rhLi $r\c rsnor(l .rr . rr \ r h\ t h. . dn ' n r| | !rrn rt.s t .rftl c d ro n u \rrr\ r.\c,r s,d\l hrng ol cl hl c r l i! r ' r li. r , ,fr l ,!. c \fr rl m .k i n s l \i rg I rtrl rscs on(i .ni ri i e\ rhe , r \ r r r ull! r t ' l t]r(i ' i L \(-l c c ti n g(l i )r c \N n r nl c). urLcssfnnD i si ng r\ \ ho$l n) h( r n rtr.l l ! { N n d n rs l rru tro nhrn thrs soul d not sho$ l. (( I \\a l \h l 9 6 e : :t. \\c r)n! rS rccl hrl i n tl cs. I t _r n! ' ) h+ s rr! r c t r . unLr r i( c \ rl ' . $ h (,1 .In s rn o r' o o l 8 r\rn !.nrl nc(etrrnS ftrnrs.\ n I' 110

wilhout tossihility oI rc!r!al. Bul tr docs Dol ialkrw rnuld edllapse dlr 0 *orld wirhoul p(,miscs would bc morally infcrior k,lhc $is(rng ol rltrld . tl.8cl is guirecorrcct in argurngthat il is ! presupposuon l|nt s irgumcnt th it is ri8hl l,r kc.p promiscs:the !erv conelusion ( b..pp(xl kr rheuni !crsrl ' /rlkr l. n is $r pposcd, jur il. v ( ll ulsr K dn I Wcrrphal1995:,lo. ll io sho$ that n maxim conlr0dicis nrslrtushous nolhnr8 ntxDl lhe moral sl.nding ol lhc tltn rr prcsupposes n rnl untrI$.knoe $nrcl h I ng- hy\ ln|cot her m . r ns. r boult hct ll( ) r u| a.ndrnSol rh. Instrlut(rt ) ll,Nc\cr. rhc K.nnan mlr rc\Pnd k' thr\ rtum{nt. b} elaiming rh.ll rt rnrlcrc\tinrlcs and rrsr(tcntrlic\th. ft| .rl l i ' recol -l heun1\cr$L/ xhr lr t t cslr s r pplicdt i) nr r t r nls r i) rt hr s lo l .t i ho* \ l hl l rl th. rgcnt r cl\ xs hc r s plannr ng do ( hv n( [ r n8 | by tllr. prdnrs. or whrlc\cri he *ould hc lice-rid1n8. !(lrn8 In r wly l}|.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 $r} lhrl is indern(tcrrr ol o r .i hr.!l c!rhl rl ron ol rhc ,r r r r t ( r ! on shr ch hr \ ncr t r t ' r clt e! . l( l XoASrard l9t)6: el. \II.rl lhc rcrl sho$\ kJ bc lnrhddctr.rc lu.t rho\. r.roni $ho\r crli.rc\ rn xehrc\ng drdr ttrrrx.\ (lLrnds qrn th.tr b.rng.\.ctt!trH l ( t r l{, Kr nt ( 'Nl\ 1 J I r l{ l ( ) r . on &'thct InrLrlircl{tur. thr l!\l \ho$\ lhrl nr} x.tkrr ern (trrl! !l.(ct(l rl | trs. l hc l uct l har ol h!r\ f r f lr f r |[ t . r n t hc I nslr ut ! r r Lr I t t ler k' ht .i | ttn,l rh(rrbchr{n r (l (trx( l. ir x. ( ounl ol lhe ( i, r 'lL'\ nf c t sc( n l h(r{ r.!(hngs-nrl l hci r rcst ) e( l[ (nr . r l\ . scellcnr iin l{) ') ] : lr l 1l ) l I rrh.r \xr. hol h (N di nl s sh, i\ sh! r r r l, ngr ht uf L\ f r slli/ r br I l\ lcsl m rt\.l r hr\ D url i grLl i , ri x ( . ! ' | , \ norr [ r r $h! r hf nr r r ] \ hn( lr t g ol l h( In\rrrl ronrel .\i rr r,, rl, . r ix\ , , n lt , 'ol[ n\ . f r , nnr \ c- l. r f , nS.or , rhrt.\rrroc.d\ ro he h,rn,r hr f r ( ){r lt r I r s. I l r I t . r h r l. r r lor f r hr l l h.\' ,' ht..rk{N l . Il r! l (trtrr . r l i , , 1 R( r t on. \ le\ lr n! l. ( \ \ 'd( t r ol nr \(r' cth.h\\. l l (!(l \ ( 1, \ ( u\ \ r nr ( l( r \ r r r \ c , r r r t r r ln) r lxnr { (.\rrrnnxrl o!cr $h,rr !\r ( r 1t r he Kr nr r r n m t r r lr sl ( in . \ nc. t r ftr i (htr\. l or. of l hr one hr r i( 1. l llr . lL'slol nor - c. ilf u( t r elk r \ Ftr.l \ l ,{ nrrl . i r r\ n(n rl .I r lir l lir lLngt hc lcsl r er er lsr nr lhlr S t ) l $h!, rr r rir r \ r nrhils lhc r cn. do. \ lhL\ shot r t hr l mtri l rcl e!nnee: .nnI .r l I! nx\i nr N o![l h. sr onS'' ll: ( r t lit ot hcrhr r ( |. llc lc\ r | . \..n x\ n \r\ rr shr(h rh. , r ! ( nl ! r , r ( li\ . o\ . r $hclhcror r or h! . rrr! | r .r rLa.!n nnnnerl h.\ $( r r l, l h. 1'. . nd n! . lI . r r l r \ t Lr lelur t l1

rHT

DIAICf

TIC

OT REASON

t hat t hc r est c o mp a re i c o o rc n t\i th n s e tt_ \ (J,s: :57). $ rt ther pfcsupposes somcmordlconrcnras part ofrhe tc\t (nlnrcty.lhc w.on8 ncssot liee{rding. or dl m.rnipulatrng olhc.s).ralhrr rhandctcnnrnin! whut is riShr and wronS thR)u8hthe test.nnd so rs no knrSerpurrty ti)nnrl in this sense. Ihc wdy HeBelconcludcsthis scction.and nukcs rhc lransit,on Itonr Kantian mor!l,it r() (ncck cthrcrl lli. suggcnsrhnr hc $!s ihc X r nr un r s la c i n ga d rl c tn tr: d rh c r th c Krn hJn l rcrts thc unr!crs!l reJr a\ purel) rann{l tbur rhcn shv should prssrn! rhrr lc\r '/abllrtv nrau.r trom a Dxnl pcrspcerrr.t).or he aeccprs rharlhc rcsrhas\om! nm l c ont c n (1 n$ h re h.l \c h e h i s n o t s h o R nrhl t rcn\onern drsrrnr gurshbcl$ccn right and *fttrr8 !ctions on ! pul.t) li)nnrt f,!sis).Th. K r nt r Nnc ir n th u s c i th c r rh rc $ c r th c ra rh o ri tydt nmti ty i l sctf b\ lryrns l() deiermrncwl r r\ mml b)r uyns d turety Jnrnrrt (nr()rdl]ur t l! ) r c s l.o r h e e u rc fc p r rh rr rh cre s li s n o tturct! ti )nni t bul rl sctt prfl ol Drralir\. ,n *hrel .n\c sc hr\e nor In li'.r For b.vond ! liind ol nr'ral lbundrr'onalriD. $heh jun rak.\ .crtrrn nntrrt pnnc|ptcl leonc c m , ng c $ ro o g n e \s l l r.c -n d i n g .ti r e\and.r n\ B i !cn th o Iiom lhrr. lldSrl rlercti).. nrukcs! rrxnlulr tionr rhc Krnrian s landpointba c k k ' th . c rh rc x l L ti o t rh c (;c.t\: ti )r. l cco i ng r(l . lfugrl. lh.y sere sinrtl) preprrcdb rccepl rhc li)Lrnihr!Drt n.rlue ol Dx nl pr inc i p l c s n p rc c j s c l ),h rs mn n e r. $ i tho!r rny xl rdnpl l o i l ' S r ' ! n( l or ' d c rn c rh c mi n s (rn ! c \1 tun D ra lr r,\r. A s f !cr. ol .ouA c. ( lhr li. nt r ln c u rc p [- rh !t th i s $ rs n c \c r rh .1rInl cntror,r)tn,trN ,nt r he lof lnuld o r' l h e tl D r\c N l tr$ _ b u t l h c n rh. l l ct.trrr resl rnr\r nr ghr h. . r h.r,n th .rr.r\. rh . Xrn r,i n e rD Ddr rtonr ro hl re rdd.d or t r r hr o r h( $ r\ In s h rrh \c o R l n rn l \ d e t.nD rn.rh. nrhri c* or s r lnr r . \ \ or o u r rc rr.f\. h \ r\.c s s rn ! th .n j n! ' r , r l t ' , nr r f ic s ) l l c !c l rh d .ti tre(n l \ rh . \c etrnrb) rcrunrl nA rhc r0 \ t . r r r lll, nl , n rh . (i r(l \. s l i ,, $ .u k l h .\f \.$ rhrr $hotc i dcr or' t c \ r , I g r . t r dr s u s rn g e c rrrrn l i !1 j rrt (n o Dnr)| ntl (ntcnr. rs rr I ir r lic r nr h r o rl rr\t t(,rh ctJ ,)s rti o n R e a !nrr\ rc\trf! tr$\.. cgcl ,n ( li, , r . , . r er / e\ l N (i rc c l | (h rrro nrs rn l l o \\: t lht t r ld n ,^ h tt, (n \e l l ro n \e ,.u $ c $ l o rhcnr l rhc trs\l ,\ . q! r 1l\ \ rn p l c rtrrl .l .!, l h .! d ,, _rtu tn o thros nxrri th\ r\ \hl r . onnr n .! rh L .trr,tr.n .\\ t rrsl \.l l -e (r\ekunc\\' | !rt.rrror\hrl tl 112

h, rltnr Thus. Sothoelrs .lallgdx. rckno(lc(lee\ thcm !\ the ur$ nl l cnrnd i nl i l l l rbl c of r hcgod\ . las Thcy rrc not ol ycst. r! or loday. hul clcrhning. ThouShwhcrc th.] camc liom. nonc ol us cun lcll ' l hcy d,a tf 1 i nqui rcrl icr lhcir onSinr nd conlilr c lhc k, t he whr'Nc thcy .r(\c, lhcn I hr!c lrnnsccn(lc(l lhcm: li,r nos Frrnt r nd rt h I sho rnr rhc unr\cFr l. nnd / l{r r r . 'lhc coDdr t r oned lnnlrd Ifthct arc rufifn\cd r,) bc \.!'drr.d h) /', Inslhr. lh.n I I hn\c !l r.u1l \ dcni cd thr r unshak. r blc. nlnt r \ r chcr nF.m d rs r rcS rf(l rhcnr v' ntl hrn! t r hr ( h.hr nr c. I '. r hr t \ r r uc. nd r lso 'J not l ru. l l l i r cxl dr sllosr lion conln\ t usrI n nr eling rs pcrhrps 1o sl l r(l l i rstl y shrl r\ rghl. r nd r h( r r nlng r i( r n ir ll ir ( lct r t r s k) nr^. or \h.ke r1.., d( f \ e , r Sipt o\ . {r n. lh'ng I 'r * b. cn .nrrusrcd nrc.,r ,\ rhenr ot t n\ oJnr n. onc. l\ e r r r l I r . hno$ r() . , t r (1 lccI nr )sLll unlilr cf lr glynr lhis i l .dgcrIi ' /,,rdzn. ,r ,' ",. lr r. nr,l. lh.r.li)rc. bccru'e I l;rl \nclhrn8 6 r.lnlursh'p , \ nght nor \cl l -.onrrrdr(r(r)l h r t r l r \ nghr .on t hc ! . it r ! , \ . 'r h.(xrs. rt r\ N hrt r\ fl l. lht lhr r nnn. t hr nqr \ r lr . |n, |r . n) ol' rnorhcr. r\ l i ,n(h enr l. I hr \ c norr . r r g! . r hr ( l. or hunl thr\ nn\rn(il i rror cnr!fl rl trl hont hl: .. onn. f lr nr \ . iLr f . f l\ . ol l. r ( us l | ' (l \i I hr' !. to thrrl n.rlh( r or n ||ng r s\ n, ! , 'l lc\ lr r g r henr t l, s 16l : ) l l (rcl rhu' r' .' rh. l i , lr , . , , 1 r h. Ku'r r r i \ r in, ll, or r r( r \ hc r.' .x(,\c\,rr ro r.,1..(rN rrL n, jr . '\ f 'r . l l. , r h( ( r h, . ir l l, lc. i r hc \ t | rc(\' . $h.r. .,!\i r({ 6fr.. Llt rfl, \ 'f . r r 'clrqur I n( 1,knr , ,.l F hr \ I ng s( h.r(l l i tr, r h( nr t r xL t r I ( l. t r t l! , r , Lnl r r I n nn. dt ,rt,.,(,r\r,, ' r.t r.r rr \r\ \rtrrpl ),hnrcAc( lint hxr\ ( r [ 1. lL\] n! r f f . l1. t li\ . 1! ' ,rl hcr. rrl ho rl \ l .rehrn!\ rn(l t,(u(t1\ \ r r hi. |or r l. lh( r ( lit c. . ons. i( r r $ r$ l rn,l \ rr\.l l rcxd! r,i t),n r 1\nr . r clr ir dr \ r ( lur l r '|r ccl hchir nl 'l' 1s ri tl \ .rr' lr.,,,tri nh\c l r r lt . r inr lo Sf if ll lle, ! er n, \ cior Nr css sn\ r..()!nL/cl h.rl| (rhJf \ nlncr hr neI nDdr t r t . nr r l l, , slx\ FrI,rf,l ro r.l l n\ I.nnerl1nl h. rrrD \Ll !r rli( r n r hr ( r , r l( r , l or r h. r ner . r r r o lhc | rdl ' i ' l ,n thc rul (rn $,,r1( l. . u r hxr r h'\ lh' r . sull( ! r f lhc onc.* th(\ R L.N I{ r( (nr' ,rn ^n. '. llr . r . k) r . l( r r ns lr nn r ! r r \ ( r ci! "l tr" ' (,1| \.,nt,!nrxn.,l r\ r,,.,. r n\ r nr lr r t r nrol ( ; r ccl, . t hr f r l lr le

la .

llro dleloctlc

of Splrlt
lPll.nomcrtp,logt, C. (88.) SplrtQ

a r
*

1T
Et|tkd ui.
rilhtrlv fiorn thir h.Fy st tc' (PS: hd dcchrd whcn pr.rcnting u! with 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 not ligrificrnl, as Rcaron w.s confih oould6nd it!.lf'at homc' in r distinctivcly r|y, onc thrt leff th Gr.ck world cntir.ly ll ws lhcn not inclincd to larncni th pslsing or cooccmid to undcrrlrndwhy it 'rrltr' !,ocr il. Ho*cvcr, Rcalonh.! 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.' of lif. callrpscd lrd why it w's comFllcd Ir rry of bciag '.r ho|nc iD tlrc world'. odrciorrlB itr thb 'hryy $1c' '. glirtf, b..rlr!c in thi! gltc 6c aubjcct fiorn th. worldi |' hc puts it tlo\r,

0t

ffi mry
W,fi
135

TH E D A I E C T I C

OF 5 P RIT

TH E OIA LE C TIC

OF 9P IR II

'Rcrsnr is Sprnr when irs cerurntr ol-bciD!.rll reuliiy has bi:cnruisr,l lo lruth. rnd il is conscrous o1-rtsell rt\ own sorld. and offie *ul,l !s s nscll- (ls: :611. The queiion lo bc considc.ed consctousne$ hv thcreforc-rs {hy (ncck cthical lilc $as nol shblc. dcspitcrhe facl dr.i hcrc cons.r()usncss itsclf'at homc in u qav rhrt consriruicd r.'rl fclt . ol ( $ h a t l l c g c l c a l l s )Sp i ri tl ' z llon Sf"rit rs thc uhdl ,1, of r nrtknr in \o tir rs it is the ,r,r lr t k t l u l t th c i n d i v rd u rl rr i s .r sorl d. l t musrrd\anc. r,, rh \ t hc ( o n s .rd o $ ,j s o l * h a t rl i s i n rn .d rl rcl y.musl l c!!e bchrr, (, r l lhe b .x u r,io l e l h i q l l l c . rn d h y p r ssng through scri cs i s lr r pcs tx rn k ) ! tn o $ l e (1 8 .o l i l s c l l l l hcsc shrpcs. rl ho$et(r lrc (l|srrnSuishcd lionr drc prc\rous orcr b) thc l:.1 rhat rhf\ r r c r c rl s p rri rsl.c ru .l i l i .s i r rh . n n c l nrcanrng rhc $ord. N nl l ol n' ! lc rd o l h e ,n gs h !Il c sn rc .c l r- l (o n \cr{ srcss.rrc \h!pc\,i j o (P S :l 6a t hc l$l ol l h h \((tro tio n Ih c l .rh r.rl ()' d .r' . rhcrcl i { c.rsk).\tl (r. s hal nul. s rl n ..e s l rv l i ' r c o n :e ro u s n e n' l n' l l i )r a ncN $!\ or \\ b. r ng r t ht rn c In rh c* o d d . o r (r. p u l L nrh cr.nnrnol og) u$d hcr(I 1, ,s le s h! s p rri r$ N s n o r i u l l v .c rl r/c (l rn rhLhcrury,)lethrcrlLl . . hJ_ un(lcnlrndinSshy thb bc{ur! ntrrsrbc lctt bLhind . wc nr.v rh.,r he r hlc r o \ e ! trh rl l a n n th e l i n d l rc .l 1 l rtr oi()l st[i l i s rcqui r.dr,' )

(' r(el erhr.rl Ire,n rl tr ll. ! . 1 t ! . ' c rr. h r\ to \r1 r\. d r\fu \\,.n ' ,1 \ ' l\ f . r , , r , . r r , rl e (l l h c I th r.rl \\,rl d l l u l rn n rnd l )r\ rnc I a$: \l r, , nr l \ \ 1! n, o . $ h r!h h . I!,rtrr\ \ l i r(.1 \{ rcr! n\ i conrttc\ brtrn(! . l, r ( |\ r ( lu. r l rr\ rtrrlu n r\.r\rl ,r\. s h .r. rh .{.tl (rcn, nal (nN[(t rD dr \ k lr . ' lLr \. r r n u rrr.^ x L \ I .\trr\\ ,i n l \ l l r. n r l )Lrri .rrl rnrrrhcj \ ot rhr r \ , , \ , , 1e\ ' rl )s : :.,rt Ih u s . rh (n ,g h$ c l i rd h.r. r \o!| ,l 1\rrucrun r iI r Lc { lhr r i ' N rl rn rd N rs i o n s b c h \f.n l h c hutrnnl N * rnd thcdr! i rf h\ . het \ v c fri ' ef,//r rn d th c l :rn l l \. rn (l h cl $ecnmrn and \!omr,r tl (l llr f el r r t u c s l h .l i l w a sp o s s b l ct()h rtrn onr.,c thcsc i !i si ons. c. \rD d er eh \ r ( l( ( on rtn c rtrr' l c rh . d l h c r.

so. lccording ro llegcl. lhc drlinc Inw regulaledthe priulc thc lamily in which $omcn wcrc conlincd.while ihe hunun lbot ..8uhr(J th( Z'l,\ qh'ch sJ{ thc ,iomarnof m(n. and a. .uch ..* ' ," tl onrr' dc r hc nr hcr t ( t : PH. : . le. lTFr dr , r nc &n v.r rrs honour lhrough the rcspcct poid to rhe human. and the in vrnue ofrhc honour pard(' lhc divinc ) lt $as cruciil hcrc lhc rrunsirion tr(m lhc lbmily as nn\llc dr manto br able to 'nrlc ilu.il kr thc stnte as citizcnr bnl thrs hc could do becauscrhc lid lu.uulcl (hlrrlxil.r. In shr\h th( In,ltr.luJl.l,l nrl nr(r(l) tmtiti.xtion for his dcsires.hut !ln, irn cduc.lion in the vinues, I rny th l madchi m l l l l i )r puhlic lile. - I hcn.on hr dc. lh. $hcD lndivrdurl no longer counlcd rs r cili/cn, hc could be rcturncd' frmrly Inr hLrrial ln this th. finnilr"scncd nn inrponanlrolc ihrl not hc sc^cd by thc d!r . lt , r r shr eh il is ! n r ccidcnllhal hr s lbr th. unilcbal lnd wlls drn'ctl1 conncclcd $rlh his {orl ;|l.lr rc.utt.' t I rP \ l ' r,r' . in( ( r h, . ! , \ ( \ neJnint t n r h( r 'J' thc ID rh( rJ.. or' r hF nr ur xl nr \ ( . . . t h( ! Jn', |) sJ' t,l " fl dr 'n $!rh rh( l r$ . n r [ r . r 'r r . . hur $it h t hr , 1, \ , nf l. t r \ f}" ' ..t ' ,' , N( r ,'bd( n.,'u( ;Jl|08 !l $o l l c8cl cmphrsi zes rc\ pcer \I n $hr lh t hr s{r r uct ur .sr s hF !l th. I:i rst, thouS h d.r t h ol t hLI ndr t ur t l$. s 81\ . n nr cr nr nS Fk| rl i ofl l l hl n l h( sphcre h. hnri l y ! nd r lvr nc h$. nonclhclt \ \at t incs ol' $ t *) $.r!cdI soei i ]l tutrel n rr n{l r . r nr i, r cc( l cLr lbonds r t lt r n h. "1he conrrrrunrly sphercs l('8clh.r ltLrc r ol lht/rrl^, so bnngingrlrcsc -,l h| pu"c**'t lhc lruth rfrl rhc e,rrlinnrlidn of rls po$cr ir lrrlurc I rrrcr(. ol rhc D i \ i nc Lr\ r r r l r r lhc r cr lnr ol lhe r . lh. r $or [ l' ,lrl' sreond. ih.s! ! rrc\ $rr. bR)u$r urro hamuD ;n rh. llt !n(r rckl ron' h,t r$h,. I ll. ! . 1 |of lr o\ s xs hcing r Yc \ nhl. !l h.r l hr hu.hrnd \rl c or fi rcn t r h, l( l r ulr t t t \ hp. sht ch r r c hr \ c. l th. (onrrU cn.r.\ ol de\ r r cr nd |deI ll. g. l r r gu. s lhr t lhc tsi d -n lnthd lnd .r\tcr lirll) rc.ogor/c er.h olh.r rnd $hat rhe) itlnd lnr r\ xnd I r'r r $x) thrr hLrshinrl $ ili do In)tr. *h.re lhe iis[r r.f r( irl. t aa.th( l rnri l ! l nd rhedr\Inrjl $, r nd r hchnxh. r r ct r er cnr sh. / , , , / ^ olt L l hc hunri nl N s. c.(h \eci n Bilscllns r hcconr plcnr cnr hc ot hcr : l l hr hrothfrlprsscsl i on r r hc dr vr nclls. $r r hin whoscsf hcr c or h( | | \c,1. tr.r l o hun[r ]r { llut lhc islcr hecom cs. t he qil. 131

TA T O I A L E C T I <

OF T PIRII

rcmains.lhchctulofthc hous{holdatxllhc guardian ofihed,\u\ law. ln lhN w!y, the two scxcsovcrcometheir tmerelyl n.tur.tL berns and appear rheir erh'calsisnili.ancc,as divcr$ beins. who sharebetwccnrhcm lhc r*o distrnclrons brlonging ro rlr( er hic a l s u b s ta n c c (P S :27i r Hegel thus orlucs lhrl lhc hrmrnr) ol (ircek ethical lile restt{l on r k ; nd of d r\i s i o n o l h b o u r b .l w c c n i h . scxcs.onc thi l $r: rcknot!ledged by borh si(lcs.rnd on whieh lhc slibilily ol rhe (ircrk socirl world dcp.ndcd: T hc dil tc rc n .Lo l l h c s c \c s rn (l l l c rr cl hl crl conl cnlrcnrl rn' . . . r n rh e u n l ryo t-rh c!rh s t!n .c . i n d i rs motcmcnl rs j usr rl r( conslanlh..omrng ol rhiu \llhndree lhe h sbrnd is \eni our h\ r hcS t r n r o l rh cl rn rl \ In n )rh . e o n n n u nrr! $hr.h hc l i ndshr. rn s ! ll- - c o n \e u ^h c u i 8 J u n !\ rh c l rn rl \ rn thrssxt to\sc\scs,,1 th. (onnnunrr! rr\ {rbrlin.. rnd cn{l(nng b.,ng. \o- con\cr\cl\ thc conrnurt) por:e\\c\ rr th. lrnril) th. li)rnrll clcnrcnrol1r. .rcrurl c\a(lrcc- rnd o thc dr\ Inc hs rrt toscr ud ruthentle,r t k in. N. rth .r o l th ( l $ o r\ h ! rt{ c l l rb n ,l rl .l ! l al ' d: hunrdn h$ pr oec e d r r\ I\rrr8 p fu c .\\ l i o u th c d i \rnc. thc l x$ !i l rd !tr s clnh lionr thrr or rh! tr.th.f \(trk|. rhc con\ei1ru5 r rh. lio unc ons c i o u n . rrtrn l i (rn In rm(rfi i (v rnd.qu.l l y r.tunr' s r.d $h. ic ( i t e l i rc T h . p o s e r o l rh c n c lhcr$orl d. oD l hc oth.l hr nd. h N srl \ r(l o rl .\i s tc n c ! o n c l n h t l InrLrl rh eonscou\nc\\. ll bec o n re c \i \l c ffc i n (l r.tu rl i l ,! s Ihc * hol . i s . strhl r c quilbn u n ro l rl l l h e fx ,l s . rn (i c rc h | { rl r\. strnl .l horrc rrl r hr s\ ho l c . r S frrl $ h r.h rl (r: ro r !e cl sxti !l i r.ti dn oorsrde. , r \ c ll hu r l i ,rl \ r $ ,rh ,n j r\c l l . h ..ru r. rt rs ns.l l nr dl s.qurl j h nunr \ n h rh f \ h r!l f (P S l 16 1r ll. S ( l I h. r . r (rf fro \tr| (.,, h rs h l \ { r!!r\r\r ( .rhhorgh.orol .o!^. , n, . ( r r c nr n\ N rI,,.ru ' e,' l rl ,( \tru (tu r. tn rh L hrptl srrrc rn $h(l j S f ' nr Nr . r c rl ' /.d In rb . (n c ft $ ,trk j . o n e In $h,ch (l i \,i on\ c\r\rc.l n r. I n r hx hoc c rl c q u rl rh ri ue re h\tr| . ti n ri rn s o s n donr,rn honnon\ r\ nr $ uh , r \ oppo r' rc n ' th l r' rh c rf rn t(h $ rs rs r.th.r thc ruthrnti errrr, . ol onc t hk nr g h r. o rh .r' r | S: l 7 8 r rl 118

'Anti9one' nrc'cnt.d thr' norlNr Dr(tur(. llrrl(l no* ,{ccdr In lhc n(ir lo rMFirrc whl |.Ualltneeo! lhr! krnd could not bc susti;lon in qdcr ro show {hy sprrir . . . nrusrlcalc bchrndrt thc bauty lk!, t(3!c.tl lrlc (PS: 265). lte ancmprsto brir! rhis our hy lbcusingon in lr ('ry ol Antrsone.as rold by Sophoel..s onc ol his lhcban plays. &1cl crprcsscrlhis 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 respcclrnostexccllcntlvorks ('l ln o1-lrlltrnrc' .16,1). il lbmred ao iorpon,r.rpan ol his rhcdrydl rruledy: rnd * G.^: l. n dl r l i nnr(nrrrlrrcrhrrnl ofl he phy r cnr , r ins n) t 'r t cr r r lcr pr ct alr \ c howclcr. Frtrolcr\y (s.f Donough,' l9ltq). In lhc /rrr,r'r2,hRr. l. conccm r' noi so nruch rcslhcli! rs eullurll fiistoricrl. hc usqs us l Lcy ro rtiasros! rhc liilrtrc or(nccl crhrol hlc. !d,ry "li.'r. has hccn prcp:tredrn thc tlcrtr$ nlrcadt cnrthrn/cd {lhe I gru rhc luhcr srstcrrclatronship. 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, l col xrl c' rtramr.rs H el cl \ t l, n {r nnDr r } I r ( nn r h( t . {n, 1, r , a ,r!,r.ri r n'itcs (l.ar:
J llcrnr

l l cD _thrng thi \ rr.l edy r s loSr . xlit hc nr hlr r lis ol t hr ( xt . 'n inncr linr l\ l( \ L r nd dut v k) r rs scl nr.orl l i ct ov.r Ngxinst hR nhcr: th. sonrn. A nt igonc.hr \ r h. lir r lr r nlcr c\ rus hcr ' Fthos . (t.on. th. man. hr s r h. qclli, ( or 'lhe eonr nr ur it ys r \ r hi s.l ' (nyni ccs nl rgor'c hnnhcr ] . t \ ! ir si( h hr snr li! c cit y. IA lhc n'lLr . r h{ d l i l l rn hel i rc l hc grrt i, l l h. bes.r Dr l( 'f on. 'n prh| l (l rpnrl rnned hr thr . . r r n. r l\ r lh r lcr lh. r r of . \ Lhog! vc l hr\ enenr!ol l h.' .i l v l h c honourol bunr l llul lhr r cor r nr r nd. * hrfh.orecnr.d onl \ rhc t uhlr . *eil. nr r sor c e( \ 'ld r or & .Lfti r\ srsr.r.In rhc lir er ! ol hcr lo\ . lnr hcr bnr r hci-$. l i rl l i l .l hc hol v dul \ ol hu f r r l h ( lor r g! , . hc r pp. r l\ r ( ' t h. l0\ .l rh. Bods:bur rhc god' shonr nre $ ohh,n\ rr. rh. or(lcN orld . dr In or . ! ( \ ol ! ccln! . ht r . . ( l kr t r \ h't . $trl \ ol l hJe. nol rhcdr!Lghr l ul s ol !i. . \ cll ( onr ( r u nr lk) nxlr ndI 'olr t r ul i t( ll. l: l- f . {f { |

119

THE D ALE(T

TH F OIA LE C T!C

OF s P IR IT

llc g. l t hus i n tro d u c c \ h c s ro ry o l An rrgon. l hi s poi rr i rrtr l /'r.ror,!rdl{ii . bccrusehc bclic\cs it rettsus nuch uboutwhy (ir.. I elhic { l lif e $ a r u n $ n .i n a b l e . ll( ) wc !e r.$ h i l c th i s n u e h i s c l c .r. i t i s tcsscl earerrctt! h(,r Hegel*dnl s u s l . u n d c rn rn d c p h v . rn d tl us cxrctty sl l rl tes!,r th hc wanrsu\ t()dtuw rio r it Sonrehntc r.gu.d thl on llcget s re!t]n, of t he play .$ c N tume a n l o s i d . \!i l h A n ri S on. o!cr ( rcon.i n !) i t, r s s nc r c pr c s c n ts c c n rc rS ' n n m d c n r c n s e l ndr!i duN l i ry \ lh 8 s o1 th.r ullr nr alc l) n d c n D i nth c k i ,rdo i ru th o ri h frn (;rc.k \hl c rctrcscfrrt u c by ( r eon. Ih u s . o n rh i s x .c o u n r.N . l rc totd rhrr ,l rj eeotul i rg r,, llc gelr an h c n n .D c u ti c sAn ri g o n c rc trs c nl s l hc ctchrt conttr . bc lr ! c c nlh. i n d i \i d rrl u d rh . Sh l e (p i c r.rcrt1978:r0.+ ). sher. l r s A nlr g( Dca s s u c hrn rn d r!n l u rls h o h rj n { s do{r thc hrnron) ,,: ( ir c c k c t hrc rl l i tc r.l F tc i s .h n n r t()rl : tti r. I cC cl l shotr, nr r nt r lv N i rh th . c \Mi n l e o t- (;to t.c l h crc A ftj 8(rrc. Ltsc$her, S oc r r r c s )t.h rt rtrc!u c n i o n i n Ch \ i n d j rn i (ts ol csl rhtrshetnj usr (, i r s t hc endol m .to e h rn .l rh c h c l rn n i n ! o l n nol her. Inorcj usl . rg. I \ o$. r r i' ( c a x i n \ tru c th rl Il .Ee l s .s i D rtrs\ed b\ A rrj l orc r\ ., lr . gi. liF or.. rn d In tl i s \c n s . \r.$ e (j h c r \\D rt,,rtrcl i (rtt\, orN\ h c r llr ng hf r ' 1 l i ch .r\c n l \ \n ti So n c .rh rt ro bl .\t ol ri gur.srhxrc\. r pner r c ( on tl n h (L l tt,: t. I .1 .1 1 l)l o s e \c r. i r s!,c[r srong r(Jrrl . l r ior n t his lh rr l l rg c l rh .rc l n r. rh o u g h r rl ,gonc{ rs .ri ghl . rn(t , A t r nr c ! lr r t h s l r. $ rs -ri g h r'h l c ru s c\h c rd .d .\ I nutenr i ndi \tri ur lis r L.c or \ (k r\n rs . o u t o r' fr.s o rrrl of t os r t ioi n , th f r\rrr| \ o l th . s l a rc .l n l r.l . l tc8.t srr\t\ to,,t. nlr gonfr , , h e re frc s .i ti ri S c r !rc rrl \fh c r.. rnn rn rh s.n:. r\ r!, h , r r nc m t r lL n i rh rn ( r.( .\l ro rc trr* rl c (j h rs.,\\l t.gctnrrk.:.te.l he r hr r k i t h rl i t \,r\ ( r.(rr' \ trrg L . ,,i rfi to tr[. trtr!on. l t) t\ r . r ig, ' ur L)ln i fr.l \ \c l l l g h rc o u \ In (l l rj rx ri rfr. $h.n j i ti (l shc \.r. i( lillllr nr Lr ) lrf\frrl l i r t.trl | tr(i trrl L ts .Srdec s..\ n{ ht ofh (, \rl rt t [ . ! k l{ r r r l * tr]g (D l h c o l h tr. th l l c o n s .o!\de\\ $hrch bctrrrgr t! r he{ l \ Lf . hs l ,^ n ' s c .s i n rh .,,rh e r (n,! rhc rk,tl l ec i , -rte l 'trl c I ' r , r ' r r . r f I e e . \h rl . rh x rs h rc h h o l (\ ro rh c hunrxn $ l L.r.orl s... tl r r r r i. t nhc ro n h l h e \(l r \L l l rrd d i n )b c d rf nccor' rh.i (trrrdmt $tl i on hc rn ! h r\ o \r ru l h o ri t\' tl ,s l i i l r). trkcn rn thi s $rL\ ' n\ r : r \ . lli. a. t . ^ | | .{ . r. .l !, ..r..r.,h r\\t,,.(r r,, I fr,.t\r .,,r,J.{.,rt,,. , ) l r h. f lr t rr\.1 r. h i rh \ o n l \ rrrc h (n I\tr.xl t! l r.rt.d rs:r nr(tr ,,r $
14 0

n i!

url agirin5l rhe slalc, mxny conlcmporaryln)duclrons

ll(,$$$. oncc his position is no ldrgcr undrrstood in these lhit llegcl lmk lhe thy to show lhtt Greekerhical I|ni. n mly secnr *os onsustarrablc beenu\erl could nol .cconnnodrle the kind of | by futi(Dsl nale rcpresenled (.rcon. rnd thus uly sccnrth.l Flu. 'r {.1. Soldnon l9R.l: 5.1n.Anlilonc rcptcOG|6 rhc hr(, in hrs e)res '{ thc lorng bartlc lgrirst thc brc!kdo{n ol lhc nNsl clcmcnlary l|r l xrl urnl .!t//r,i ft { nd l hc hcScnr t r }ol cir r lsoeicl} . ) . N, ) w. l l hrl rs.erturnl ycssob\rousl]er ir icr lol( r conr hanm an) c( 'nnL'n -l lhr pl xy.w ho l rkc i l rs unqu. st ionr hlc t ( ir rRr chr nll. hb s I| ' rorth. sr ' merns u\ l ,) la. l lhr l. in lhis eor r r r ( ^er . I lr . aghl Fl hl S ofho.l cs I rh" l l l {rrh l A rri soncl . rn d t hc $ur 8 $holly $ilh hcr t udge f ar.," l (Jcbbl 90l : \:1.p. \i \). lhose ho\ lilt t ( Nr r ds llcgcl e\ plcr br r,' r!\por(l kJ tht pl x) rr lhr i ir ii( \ t ncr r r ir $r r ": lar ( ( ) r hes. ol ( r . or tfi rr],r ,\ rl c rhrr l l c8cl sou ld f r r ld lh. r ulhont ! r i. nr \ nr b! Antlgonc.so lhal rr rs crs]' t(r scc _ idF rr!|\dL[lisn rcprescnlcd br l ktcl . $rth hi i \crrrrnl n r . Nl \ ob|r p ol r |. \ r r l. , . ouki r . kc l hi r {" efrcscnl rng gtn!rtrc. t hi. . l pr lho' ( \ 'ick. 's l9r r : 515) r l rhrnk rh,s\ceonrlr..ounl is x\ I n, sr xlLn s lh. lir n. ho$c! er I rhxnore"thc * rr" i n shr ch llcScl pNs. nt sAnr r Sof c n I f r ) {ir l uhr l ns $. hr\. sccf). seeor d.$h l. llcg. l r r uI r n |l\ or f arr ( nr ( (^er ( r.on l hc $rl llr . l nnn\ ( onnner r lr lr t r \ t hf llr ! qtrq s. \hrl l . rl' n docs n n) lloN lhr l he hcl, e\ cd( r f of { Poi ^a' a r hLnl r hos. \ ho lr lc t(J Lr r,, l r rB hr.or \L,nt,ror At t ilone \ . ^nd l r.' h( rr r(l n,i rd or ( f.on b( ( r useliL\( Nt t , olr r r ertlhr losot h) llt nri srurl cl. r \ no I Jot ) . r r er dLn!ol licg. l cr t n r-.!rr,(n,ri ,,rl :Lr i i l r{r rl ,r.[,rn rh]r l r. $.f1 , , r 1. , r '\ f f r r nr ) \ li( r l sr n\ hil) or r hc rrrl n,' t)rot)(rr(rdrn!.i lhe I Lr \ . r n lr ( r 1 ( r . ( nr r r \ r t r . r r r.. rFri rl rr ,, hel t)l i l (1,\cL,\ r , '.( ir llcgcl s f ( ) lilr . nl ( n, llo( iL \ ( c l l bl ai t, l ' )' )l r,' l l 5 ) l n l .( r. ,r ' ffl r\ ro nr.. rht nr i: lr k! h. r h r h. \ c r t . ounls n lc , : r. l ,{ l .( r\kl r,,rc rhrl Il (g.l $r nle( l lt ) r . 1. \ ide\ '. r f d lo nr $. \nri !({ . oi ( reor *c, c Nt Ns. nlxlr \ . ol r hc lit r . ci ol' aa.,r| l ' \ l rtrl ith. ( i tu(l * .r l( l t oul( l nol r . t onr nr \ hr ( . r r d $ hr ( h -.| l rn'nf t' i ,,Lrl hl Ll ,^rn A he l( $ r . . out l r s lh. 1 llcg. lu{r llh. ll. r rl arrl r\' .,.,ru rl ,.,rrl i . r,,!.tl \ \ho$ \ hos ln llr e ( ir c. l sor [ 1 ! r t l' n( lc

TNE DIALECTIC

OF sPIRIT

TH E D A L E C TIC OF 5P IR II

(Anligone and Creon)had fixed allcgilnceslo one sphere rhe olhcr or so rhrl when lhesesphcrescamc inlo conflicl (lhrough the li8urc o who was significantly60rl r male political 6gure and lh!. Polynices. parr ofrhe porr. drd a deadbrolher and lhus pan ofthc family), lhr' il. confiict couldoot bc teiollrd in-ary \ily. As I undcrsland in llegcl . vi6i thc central reaion why this opposilion wrs inevitable was rhc frcl thltl in Greekelhicallife. eachindividunl(nan or woman.brothu or sister)had their 'slatiorr'.and saw lherr dutles detinedid. them lf theselernN HcSelrcfcrs to this lspccl ofcrcek ethrcrl lili whcn h. has lhrl: in this ethrcalrealm . . selt-consciousncss not )cl declares i Ihcrc i l hrs the l rl ur. r c c c iv ed s d u e rs .i p a n rc u l a rn d i v i d u rl i ty. it on ihc onc hand.merely ol rhe unilers.l will [( rcon. !s a manl. itli on the othcr.ol consanSuirity [Antigone.as a $onla ]. rrri panictrlr o indiv r dLr a lo u n rs n l y d s d s h rd o w y u n rcal i t! (P S : 279). Therc r: c then, a r(]ls! u wluch t[c Ored. clhrcal world co]lapsedbccausc h4d tntLllicicnr spacefor 'the individqal : it is nor bccauscAnlisofr a thc bul r c pr c s c nlcth i sIn d i !rd l a l j \l i crc b e l l i o n g a i nst sl dl e. beeau:. d nc ir hc r nr rg o n e r (i e o n w c re rb l e to ri s c( bo\c thei rsocl alrpherL' A o o ol lnd s c e! alu e i n l h e p o s i l i o n fl h e o th c r.A s ! rusul t l hi s soci rl 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. a wit hin t hc sc h e m c i th rn g i i l i k e w i s e . r hcadof nrl c. (.rco! Ii L o cqu{lly obligcd lo ii,rbd lhc bunal and $ lo funish Anligone lor h. .rc hi dis obc dien c cr i s h e c ru s c h i n d i \i d u rl i dcnri l l cs rn or hersel r l t ! holly s , r h o n eo l c i d i n gc l h i c !l i n p c tu l i ! c thall l cgel characl crL/e' r r heelas h t$ ..n An ti g o n c d (i c o n rs l rrgrc N cl l hcrrsabl . to sl . he rn ' bnel iiom lh . o h l i g rti o n th rl g o $ r(l rIh c i r. .rtrr.l l l d.tcrnrl ncd r(l \ fl r r t hc c t hie rlo tu l c r: l I n lt h i s .th i rx l.o n s (k { rs n c s \lh c rci s rroc.pri tc .nd cqurl l yn,, rh s lr ug g l cn o i n (l c .r!.n . \L ,rc c . n [l i ng rnd l csti ngol h$ hr. . l bc c nS i \e nL L l o r l h c e (rrtrrr).l h ec \scn.col crhi cdl i l i fttrth . ri n c onse ro u $ rc $ ,:,f n .tl i rrc -!n $ r\.ri rg. \i l hout conl rrdrcrr,nl ( i) nsc q 0 c rrl y$ c rr. n o l l i e e d $ i l h l hc v)ny spechcl col r . rn n e, ' lliro r b .l $ N n l )rs s i o n d d u l )-. oi * i l h thc conri c\tc. Thc .th' c.l .of . lc ol r .o l l i s i o nb c l w e e n u l ) :rn d(l ul y d r . r s n c s s . . k n o w ss h rl i l h u s() d o-rnd hasl l r.N dv dcci dcLi . 1 42

wherherro belong to the diline or rhe humanlaw. This immedihds aie Gmnessofdccision is somthingimplicit. and rherefore at the srme tim the signilicance ofa natuEl bcing as we have sen. Nature.notthe accidentof c ircumstecesor choice.assrgns ihe one sex 1() one law, the otherto the other law; or conversely. an two ethical powers themsclles sive lhemselves individual and actullize thcnselvesin the two sexes. existence ( PS: 279 80) Thus. as soon as an issuc ariscsin which the dulies orlhe man and ir duties of rhe woman pull in opposiledirections.the individurls could only find themsehesin conflicl. as ncilhc. could see concerned iow any othcr courseolaclion was opento lhenr: Anligonen!r/ b'rry i.r brolhc.,( rcon , J/ upholdthe law of lhc strtc. Ncilher can the.ethey lbr. frcl any real guill lbr wh.t thcy hrvc done. as eachbelieves i.vc done whut was requiredof lhcm. even il-lhe resull oi so act'ng ncithc. do lhey feel any fear or any pcrsonrl l.t been disasrrous: Ii|nosity lowd.ds rhcir opponenl: lho r ct s and is guilt yilb. r s l l l l i s nor /r^ pl di cuh. indi! idual /r,r self hc is only thc unrell shadow.or he cxisls nrcrcly rs a unilcrsll sclL rnd individuality is purcly rhc /i,r'dl momenl ol' rhc lcl !s $reh. the conlent bcing thc hws xnd the customs w hi ch.for l he i ndi !i dur l.ar c lhoscof his chsr r d slar 'on . . within lh. nrlion dcscends lionr lhc univ.rs{l Sell-consctuusress dnly ashr down Nsmc.c pxrlicuhrity. and nor down lo lhc rngle s. w r i ndrvi dual i ty hi ch posils f exelusi! c lll r n Nciur lr xr slcnce {hi ch i n i l s rcl i or rs ncgr lr vct ( ^\ r r ds it s. ll O r r lhe cont r ar }. $it ) rt\ N eri or rc\rson \ecu. , ! i t idt n. . in lhc wholc.unm r xed h ntry!l i cn cl cnrel l li.ci l hu $r t h la! r Dorhoslr I ly. ( PS 2lt 2 l) rndlvidu. ls sinr plyr cl in lhc wir y t hey lccl th thrspi cl urc.hercl ore. l r!'sl)onsibiliticsr llndrng lherr ucrntt l.Nds in .$|gcd k) by lhcir s)crrl rc!| ,^' rhN t whr t t hey wer e calledupont o do wr s h utl cri ng. th.y athrol l y hl cri or 1o w hrr orhcr s$cr r cr llcd upon t o do. whiln nill lhan erhic{l misjudgcmcnlon L.llrt thrl this uNs duc lo l-ulc"/fulher

143

THE D I A L E C T I C

O F 5 PIRII

TH E O IA L E C TIC OF S P IR IT

This thenxplains why on the queslionofAntigone orCreon'] . Hegel mosl often adopts. balancedview- (Cf. Kaufinann l97l: 201. 'Hegel's understanding of Greek Fdgedy far surpalsed that ofmost or his delmctors. He realized lhat at lh centre of the greatest tragdi.: ofAeschylus and Sophoclesw find noi a trai{ic hro bul a trasic coll i de& aDd that the conflict is nol between good and vil but berwccf positions, somegood.'Fora similrr eachofwhich embodies one-sided viw, see Shklar 1976:82 l.) So, rather thm tzking either to repr.. senl any son of progressivemodem standpoinl(either indrvidurl conscience the caseofAntigone, or the secularstatein the caseol in rhemboth as twical oflheir Greekworld. a wo.ld lhol Creon),he sees has no methodfor overcomingits underlyingdualisms.He thus doc' not condemneitherofihem, but ralher sgeseachas a viclim_of thcil oflhrl whereil is rh. limire(lness qnq qrgril_r,olgeptioi. -lillrEd lqllel conceptionthal brings aboutthe collapscoflhe Greek ethical worl(l: the The collisjon between two highstmoral powrsis sel fonh in a plastic fashion in that suprcmand absoluteexample or rtagedy.Antiqone.ln this casc,family love. whal is holy. whxt belongsro thc inncr Iile and to inner feeling,and which becaus( ofrhis is alsoc. led the Ia$ oflhe nethergods.comesinto colli sion with rhe law ofthe Slate.Creon is nol a tyrant, bul rcall\ I moral po$eri Creonis nol in the Nrong: hc maintainslhat llru is law of ihe Slate,the authority of Sovcmmnr, to be held iri respecr, and that punishmcntfollo$s lhe infraction of the las Eacb oflhcsc lwo sidesrcrlizes only one of lhe moral pow.rs. and hds only one ollhese as ils contenrithis is the clcnrcnl oi oferemlljusricc is sho$r one-sidedness here.and rhe nreaning in this. thal bothend !r uriusriccjun bccruserheyilre one-siderl. though al the sanrctimc borh obtainju$icc too. Bolh are recor nized as havinsr vrlue ofrheir o\rn in rhe unlroubledcoumeor morality. llcrc rhey bolh hale rheir own validity, but a validil\ in which is equ lized. 11is only the one-sidedbess rheir cl,inr which justice comestbrua.d to oppose. (LP R : II. pp.264 5) Thus, rs onc commenlalor observed. has 'For Hegel.it is nol an unfol Crrdef runatecontingenrfacl thal humansmusl lerve the harmonious 144

in which they ar at home in the wo.ld; instead, it is concepnccesslry that this moment ofimnediacy be overcone' (Siewart

30s).
Now, chaBcteristically. Hegel dos not really tll us in the how it might be possible for lr! to go byond this 'on-

' in a way th Greek! could not: lhb positive task is largelv 5 he Philosophyof Righr, wherEtensionsbetwenfamilv and
and the human and divine law. ate treatd at length, and suppos,lrolved- So. to take on exampl, while for the mn in lhe G.eek lher exisld a sharD division between family and state, in 't viw ofthe modm slale,there is no such sharpdivision, in u man is both pan of the family and part of the state, where. the le, he reprsents family ir lhe sute as hadof the house-

question.bui onewe cannolconsiderturther It is an inrereqtinS hc dualisms the in how far Hegelsuccecds overco'ning further
ofCrcck ethicallife: it is alsoa. interin his discussion qustion.which we caf,not dwell on eithr. how far such

(ci 1986: 68). is evendesirable Nussbaum

Foflowins his discussionof ,4nliSo,e i1 rhe Phehonenototy' thcn looks again at th Greek s@ial world. showing how thc of lc$ions betwen the sDheres men and women. state and . trccaineexDlicil once their cthicrl differenccsbrought these the inlo conflicl-On the one sid,the slalc ried lo undermine to thc familv' allesiance ism ofwomcn and lheir panicularistic on ihe otherside womankind the evcrhsling ironv [in lhe life] community (PS: 2u8) becamea sourceof inlr!8uc and conuP_ the young to challengethe b the life ol the statc. cncouraging ofthir elders.who could thcn only reasscntheir positionbv dll banlingofcily slates. salthc young1owar. In this constant (ireck elhrcallifc has beenlosli individin for consciousncss 3r.hstn f.cc oftheir socill identitics,as the 'livins unitv of y'h'rhsrGrcd into a multiludeof seplraleatoms (PS: 289).

The Romanwodd that ntitled Legrl Status'.Hegelargues |b ncrl subsection. bv rhc Roman empirewas shaped this Eld world buih up by
145

i/
T I lE OI A L I C T I C O F 5 PIRIT

r f r Dr A! cr r c oF sPr ir 'I tho6individualsand becominaa ryranl so undcnninins any possrro bility of socialcohcsion.oncc h is subjected the arbilrarypower of th empercr.the Roman citizen quickly comes lo sec ho\r emPty to his appeals lcgal right arc. and hencefecls him$lf lo b alone in a morally arbitmryunivenc, in which 'misht is ri8ht . Much as Unhappy lo now had Cons.iousness donc bclbrc, onsciousness slruSSles nake fundamenially alienitslffecl at home' in a world from which it fecls

'shanering of the polir. and as a resuh individuals now came ri) conccive of lhem$lves as ra*er lhan cili/ns (ct Thc Positivity of rhe Chnstian ReliSion'. in ETw: l5G7). tbr Hc8cl. ^,rlrr. 'pcrson' is a quintessentially modcm social calegory.whcreby individunls scc themselves occupyin8 fivat spheres as with their own interesls, lgally proccted from the inledereDce ofothc6. In conlrasr ro the lhrck srlf{onceplion of(;reck ethical life. in which rhe indi, vidual is sq:n $ pan oflhe univcrsalethicalsubstance. individurl the qua person vrews himsclf in abslrncllerm!- mrher lhan rdcnriryins hirnstlf wirh rny particularcharacrcr socralstalion (hcnce. llcgcl or chim\, thc nnrlction of thc kind of sll-renuncrat'on prcachedh) pcrsoflhood Slorcsrn lhis pcriodl. Eecnusc involvcsmcrcly lhat Onc qLu scll-consciousncss general (l's: 2el), lhc aclion pctronsundeF in ldkc rs k, sccurc/',?(/^ lbr lhcmsclvcs.for while privale owncFhip lirccs olhcr rndi!iduah to reco8ni:/c lcgal sl{tus ol lhc f.o0eny lhc owncr. no individual is lelttql ht rherr propeny (in the way rhat Antagoruand (icon werc dclincd by thcr s(rial mlcs). nnoc thrs can 0luays bc lransfcnid or legally'llicnated. Thc pcNon is thus nctcr .cally cnlr8cd *ilh the porld.rs such.and hcnccIlcScl ass({rirtcs thrs oullmt wilh Sceplicism Now. in his Prtl)r.?h ,/ Rrsrl. Ilesel besrnshis rccount of the ratirrral sldtcwirh this notion ol personhood. mrkcs clc{r thll and he incnds r() incorporarc lhis notion into his 6nal p'ciurc. in a wry l hai lhc ( ir c ek sw e ru u n a b l ct(, d o (c l : PR : \1 8 5). l l ow cvcr. l l cgcl nrakcs cqually clcartharrherar|('ulstrrc cannor bc.onsrructcdaroun(l lhN v{nl .rlcgory dl,r.. bul rhar pcrsonh{xxl musrh( brhDccd $irlr a lcss abstrr.t, lcss legalirrc $ll-eonccptron. shich l.!\cs nun lor n r nc ol lhc $ns c o f p o l i r.rl e o n n ru n x yl c l l b y con\e(ul rcssi n l hc 'hupt y s ht c of (n e c k c l h i e .l l l c In h i \ d rs c ussnro thc l ' r.r" r ,n"r//djir llcgtil also atremtrs k) hfln8 our the onr,sidcdness lhc of so(rrl strL'cturc rcpresented i'lpcrinl Romc. Ihc difiiculr! llcgrl by ir lc nlr lic s c c nr s b e th rs :o n th c o n . h rn d . th c onl y * dy thc bgal to pcr\,!rt thil nr!d. up lh. Rontin \rarccould liel ro\ r{rrl trn } $rtll caeh olhcr $ns lhrcuAhlh. Iilrrc ol thc cnlp.()r. trl|o c'llh icd thc \o!.rcrgnrr ofrhrt rtltc. on rhc orhcr hrnd- \och sa\ rh. drssolulkrn ol lhc polricrl communily Inkr ! colte.tron ol sell-rnrcrc(.d rndi!id u.ls thrl thc cmperorcoukl only srrnd up lor lhc srrlc hy dpposng 146

Spitit Cultur Self-Alienated

a ln thc prcviousseclbn. IlcScl has prcscnted porlrait of'lhc happy lilc. wilh an accountof how it crmc to break .tale of Greek elhicttl oflhrr brcakdown down. In this section.hr cxplorcsthe consequcnccs modem world, in which we i:rce ! sericsol opposilionsthar for thc werc.ot erpcrienccdns such pnor lo modemily, bclwccn slale ed individual,d'line and hum . duty ud indrvrdul|lc('nsciemc.llegel lhrs sh;fi rs a trunsition from Truc Spnn lo Sellchamcrcrizes Sprnf: Alionaled lTlhis [Sell'Alicnlrcd] spirit conslruclsfor irsclf not mcrcly d The world. but a world thal is dotlblc.divided and scll:opposcd. world ol thc cthical Spirit [i.e. True Spi.it] is its own p&a?,/ worldl andlhcrclbrccachol iis powcrsexislsrn lhis unily. and in so li.aslhcy rrc drslrnclli,n onc anoderthey arc rn squilibrium llc.. lic li)r Sllf-Alicnurcd sp'ntl, ho{c\er with rhc $hole lnlorh'nt hr\ i st;ir rhar rs g.oundcd $nhin nsclf nnd r inr i nd$ctl si l hut$(h h,h i tshLr ng ont t hinSoulsidcofndalicn . dl rh! {hole f not t heunit y$hieh r em ains kr rr.Thecqui l i hri unr thal *rlh itseli nor thc conlcntrrrcnl comcs lio hirlrng returncd of I on l o i l scl l bul rcsl s l herrl icnr h) n opposit cs.hcwholc. t hcr eucturl'ly. \rrflf nnncnt, is. scll--ali!'n!lcd lbru.likc cNh ( PS:295 5) lhcrclarc. ltcgcl l.ics lo show how m(tdcmconscious_ In this $ection. (,t ns conceptron dichohmus ocsshar adoplql o 5eric5 lund.Drcntal 'n ot rhc world. and how lhis has nudc il imFx$blc lc conscrcusness in this nrqlcm lbrn) n) l..l rt homc . 141

T HE D A T E C T I C

O T S PIRIT

IH E

D A LE C IIC

OF S P l R IT

Culturc Hegel openshis discussion focusingon 'Culture and lts Realm or by Actudlity'. Culturc'hcre is a tnnslation ofthcOcman lc.m Bi[/!rf . which has connolalions educalionas well as of cullivated soc'et) of and morcs. Ilegcl lssocialcsscvcral imponanl dichotomicswilh lhir the between form ofconsciousness, lirst beingthe way ir distinguishes thc nalu.il selfind rhc cililizcd or cuhurcdonc. Whercasin rhc (;reek and Roman wo.ld. natureplayed a lundamenral role in deter m ininst hc s oc irli d e n ri ry fl h c i n d i v i d u a(n s man and w oman. Ii tr o l example).herethe individualseessocietyas requiringthe transtbm! lion ol his or hcr purely nalLml bcins: Althou8h herelhe self knot\s itselfas dd seli: yet its a.tuality consistssolelJ" lhe setting-aside in ol irs nllLml scll' (PS: 298). This is rhe kind of oppositionbelwccn sociely and nalure of which Rousseau compl.ined. wherc nran s.ls abourtrying k, transfonnhinlself r{,di, r/ ndtLrre. As wcll as sceing an opposilion betwecn nlturc and cullurc. modemconsciousness distinsuishes endsas an indi,,idualliom also ils IhG{ of lhc stalc.rnd so scis up dn opposilionbctwccn self intcrcn and ihe genemlinleresl.shere il lates the ibrmer lo he 'hnd and the htler to bc 'g@d . Il thcn dividcsthc soci!] redhninlo wcihh . *hich ir !jews as bad because inlolves the pursuitol paaicularrnler!.srs. il .nd nNlc powc.. which it licws !s good bccruscit is thc rcdlnrof l h unlt enalc onc em sl l th e nc o m e so s e e . o w e !e r.l hat an i ndr!i durl as it is .licnllcd fronr thcseconcenrs. $ comcsto llnd the stat. .licn and . nd oppr es s i! c :l l i b l l o $ s .rh e n . h a l l h e c o n s c i ounress i s i n rn(l l l hal l i, r ir s el- ( loeslin l i r rh e (rl c to s c r i rs s i n rp l c csscncc rnd N bsi s t di. . r n g. r c r Nl.b u t ro t i ts i n d rv l d u a l ' ry ss u .h : i l d.cs l i l l herei l s N , r r r r r n her ng. rl n o l s h rl rl c x p l c i tl ] i s /o / i ^ c//: R rl hcr.i l l i nd\ b t hr t r lr cs lr lc f o! \ c r d rs o * n s c ro r q u a ftl i \i d u !l rctronand \uhduc: x i l ir ' ( ' ohc dr c n e e ' s : .l 0 .l l .Al rh c s rn re l i m c. rhc i ndi vi dudl sccs tl $c r lr h Nsr ddr c r s rn g L sn rl rrc s a s a n i n d i !i d u l l.hrsp.rni cul ar h i rs needs. $hilc r l{ , bc r r e ti l i n g ,,l h e r d r!i d u a l sn l h c s a nrc rn i \ry: hc thcrcl br. conrcsto scc scrlrh rs 8{hd and slaleposc' rs br(l Bul con\cxnr$ . c s s m r y ! li) r c!!^ t th rsc v a l u u l i o n n c c a 8 ri n .rnd scc scrl i ce ol ' o the slrtc rs clhicrlly hiShcrdran mere ind;!rdual seit-'entoymenl kced sith t his conr|diction. consci( $rcssnow rr;i'sro resol!c i l br . c ! r ! r ng lhr n q su p s l i S h tl y i l l i rc n l l y . rn d ci rhcrtrc.ri ng sr.tL d 148

powerand wcrllh asrd, good . or treatinglhem as ror, bad . Hegcl bctweennohl.andignohle lor brse)conscioushbels this Asa cont.asr whc.c lhe formc. is happyto sene the staleand has Fss respectively, and lhe latler resenis subora posilile e\aluationof ic prosPcrity, 'ls seeks lhe dination1()lh ruler and despiscs wealth lhat il noretheless could not uPhold a simPlc Hcgel arguesthat.just as consciousness dichotomybelweenstatepower as good and wealth as bad . so too ir cannorupholdlhis dicholomy belweenthe nohlc and the ignoblc as to linds it imPossible pul ilself Senu'nelvrn th noblc consciousncss r.rvicc ol the stalc.and so showsilsell ro be no betlerihrD lhe ignoble proceeds foltows !s Ilcgcl s discussion consciousness. idcnlilicsitselfwith the statein I Firsl.thc noble consciousness tPiril of sclt{tn unci.tion. as the he.oismol \?rn'e, the rittl?whrch $crifices the slngle indi!'dual to thc unr!emal.lhcreby britrSinglhis i ntoerr.rrn,L rl c/r^i ,r.,' n(qhur ulunr r ll) r ! noLn( c\ r . \ ( siions md cnjoymcnrand aols and is cffeclive in the inlerestsof the rulinS is power' (PS: 106). llowevcr, as the noblc consciousncss a$are thal lnd rs il docs nol really bcl'cve on !h staledepends xs sclf-s crilice, thar the stllc is rn a posilion to commlnd its obcd'cncc.rt r\ no morc who whcn il cor r cst o t hc por nl than' l hc rdrgrl i ussl l (P S : 107) . -ll n)eans his lilL or paniculrr is not rcally prep!rc.lk, lbrgo 'IrlLJcsts: his o$n opnrion and his oun p rticuldr that hc has in l-!cl reserued will in facc of lhc f o$cr of thc slatc His conduct.thc.clilre.conflicls rri th the i l l crcn\ ol thc nrl e u nd i\ chr lr . t dislic oi lh. r gnoblc $hr.h i s !l w rl s on lhc lor nl ol r c\ oll ( PS 107) ronsci oLr$css dislineliot consc'ousness ). ro prcsc^cl he n.blcr isnoblc l n o cr r mtrc mexni nl lil sell: s. . r ilicclhr r r r his nt nagcd musl N (hi erc of hithcflo: w! rh.rcli're nr\c lirln rh. hctu)isnt sc^ice ro thc I i Ll l cr) . * hcrc th. l o $. r oi lhc nnlc r s . shblished n lhc hc(]i rn ol anolhcrwill s. l r bole t hal of his i ndi !(l url D rnr.rclr . fomr or' rn r sho s{.!r N l l csi tl ncc o his powcr ( cll PS: ll0 ll) subj ects. dir l hc nl l cr no\ bceonrcs or ccdf iom lhc unr vcr srrl nlcr cst . l k)w c!.r, and himsell h!'.onres r scll s.ninS (lcspol As n rcsull, lhe noblc consciouscss linds itsell dcslising thc sovcrclln. much litc lhc di i gnobl econsc()usnessd. (onsequ. nr ly.whilc inilixll) r l'e noble ! ol(onsci ousn.ss l he nt,narchs r ol. ns I dispcnscr ser lt h srw 'n p(^ni \. l i ghl . rnd w rs 8rl l ctul lo hinr lit r his lir 8cssc.oncc lhc 149

T HE D I A L E C T I C

O F 5 PIRIT

H E O A TE C TIC

OF 5P ]R IT

monarch becomesa despot.rhe noble consciousncss now views his nced for .oyal patronaseas humiliaring. and so wealrh become\ nothingmore rhana badgeofnslavemeit: 'lll linds that it is ourside of itslf and blon8sto another,Rnds its pefi,raltr as such depen, dent on the contingentprsonalhyof anothr.on the accidcnt of r moment,on a cl)price. someother uterly unimpo.tanl or circumskncc . . . The spirit of gratiludcis, ihe.efore, feeUntsoflhe the mosrprofound dcjcction as well as ofcxtrcmc rebellion (PS: 313 l4). once again. lhe outlook ol lhe noble consciousness becomcthlt of thc basc has consciousness. the sametrme.thc monarchbecomcs Al compled yet iunher, as thc powerrhal comesr,,nh wcallh leadshim to despisc thosc whom he rulcs: ln this arrogance which fanciesit has.by thc gifi ol' a mcal. acqurred selfofanother's l and rhcrcbygainedlbr nse ' the lhc submission ofanother's inmost being. il overlookslhe inner rebetlion oflhe other: n overlooksthc t-acr lhai all resttuints havebeencasl oll: ovcrlooks lhis staleol sheerinncr disruptronin which. rhe !,ri/?dill of beins-foFself havins bccomc divided against ilsclf. all idenlit y .all ex is rc n c c . d i s ru p te da n d i n w h i ch rhe senl i menr is . nnd vicw,po'nr ol lhe bencflctor sufter mosl dislo.lion (PS: _tl5). In thrs socrallyalienared world. whereconsciousncss lbund has rl impossiblcto overcomerhe di!ision bet$ecn sociely ind the indivadual. nothing hds retained vrluc it .ppearedfu h !c. rs crch has the becomerransnnrtcd inro 1rsopposilc: I t is r his rb s o l u te n d u n i l c rs a li r\d s n n n nd rl i cnN ti on the a ot r c t ur l \ y orl drn i l o l l h o u g h t: t i s t)L tur u l t uk W hat i s l crrnt i n i r hs $or ld i s rh x lr.i l h e r rh c d ( rrrl rr! o i to w cr und $c!tth. nor lhc r rs nee i l i e,/n \. ro o d r d b a d .o r rhc.onscrou!rc\r ' l ol ' good x f d h rd (th c n o h l c rn d rh e rg n ohl cconsci ou\ c\s). liossc\{ lr'lrth: rrr lh. contrrry_ i|ll lhc:c monr.rls hceo te r r \ enc d. o rf.h ri Srn g i n l o th c o l h .r. (l { ch i 5 rhc opposnc ol r r s elr ' . . \\' h x t $ c h rte h c rc ,l h c n . L srhj nl l l hc monrcnrs c \ . eur c r u n r\c N i L tu s l e eo n o n c N n o rh cr. crrh j ust !s nru.h r |enir t c \ 1 1 \ \f s c l r:rs | l l -o r| n sl s c l f i n r(Jrs otposi l cxnd i n o i i { P S : Il 6 l 7)

betwecn rts categones. ln becomingaware of this interchanSe beSinsto havea more tlegel calls ihe disrupicdconsciousness whrl understanding such concepts,in contrastto the rigid of dillecrical 6inking ofwhat Hescl calls 'the honestindividual : The honstindF vidual takes each momcnl to be an abiding esscntiality,and is the of thoughtlessness not knowing thal il is cqually doing uncducated however. is consc'ousness thc reverse.The disruptedconsciousncss. of the nbsolule penersion Wh.l of the pen6ion. dnd. moreo\er. ,{!vails in il is lhe Nolion. which brings logcthcr in a unny the lhoughtswhich. in rhe honeslindi!idual,lre far apad.rnd its lrnguage l. thereforcclcver md wrrty (PS: ll7). Usingashis modclhcreDiderot s,Rr,'.zr l{,vr?r.! (Nhich was Frblished posthumously.in Goerhe\ rrandalion. in 1805). Hegel coitrasls this nihilinic wil of thc nephews disruptedconsciousness' with the inanicuhcy ol-lhe horcsl ntrrtor. who tries (o cnhn thc formefs atremplk) olcaum a1l valu.s. ln lhc fice ol-lhe nePhcws and prolbund social crilicism. the honestinda d.ep sclf-knowled8c vidual is mrde 1olook naivc {nd foolish.ptutlculrrly in his susseslior that thc lrdividull remore hims.lf fronr rhc qodd ot pcNe.lon lnd lhrl tlh1lcthc honcsl rium to nature.ln fdcl. howe!er. Hcgcl nr8gcsts to individurl is powerlcss chrngc lhc cytricrl nclrhcw.thrs '(lsrupled rs highcr serbusncss. its \cnst ol lhc holk){ncs\ ot rhc .uhu.nl wodd lcrds thrs con\cnun.ss bcyon(i x. Faith and Enlightenment l I1tr l l cgcL. hi \ N ^c b.)ond l he xlieM lc( l$or ld ol cuhur ccin r . r kc whcr clhc lanner ci l so di R (l i (nrs. l hcru\ ' l :ri th or ! s t ur c insighr '. whilc lhc in i cl s rcconci l i rti on r' bcl ontl oulsidc in( f i\ id'r alsubj. cl. b) thc hrl er sccts ru.on.i l i N l i on t unr inginsNr d.l( ) t he \ clr 'lhr t . ! n unsul l cdbf l h. \rni tI ol- t hesocr r l$or ld: rcmN i n qorkl which a ol Il]hc cssencc iilrdr . bcconres supers.rsihl. In is esscnrrlll on ,l'.r' in rclalronlo seli'consci(naness. pore insighl. on th. olhcr h!nd. thc rransxion ol pur. lhoughl lnlo ohiecli! ilvhr s lhc h.s eonsci ou\ncss l h. otpo \ ir edet $nr in. liur : 151

i 50

I HE

DIALICIIC

O'

SPIRIT

TH T

D IA LTC IIC

OI ' P Ii IT

significanccof a mrely ncgative contnr a content which i\ nduced to a momentand relums into the selfi lhal is to say,only lhe slf is really lhe obj.ct of thc s.lf, or the object only has trulh so faf as il hasthe form ofthe sell { P S i 124) Hegel Soeson to contrasl failh and pure insiSht accordingk) how they respondto cullurol consciousness. the one hand. faith On accepts chim of Rarneau nephcw.rhat lhe real world is a soulthc s lrss existcncc (PS: 126)i bur ir Sctsbcyondthe nephews despairby sehinSup anorhcrworld in which true s,rlisfaction can be found. On the other hand.puacinsrghr acknowlcdacs nephew's the cynical chimr that Seniusand lal.ni halc no rcrl mcaninSor siSnificance. leam\ bul frorn rhis a kind of lib.ftl csrlrta.ilnisni. rhere allare seenas equallr cap,blc ofusin8 rhcir rcason. and hcncc s cqually laluable: '!ndi!L dualiryl counism$cly a! somethrnS uni!crelly lcknowlcdsc{, viz. r\ an educ.lcd individuality (PS: 127). Wrrh rhis tum rowardsa r.tio, nalastic humanasm. Hrgrl lltcs us on ro thc nexl pan of th seciion. wherehis discussion ofrhc l;nliShretrmcnt r.,csro b.ing out how fanh' and pure insiSht comc to bc opposcdto onc andfter. and thus hos ncither can brin8 sdisfactronlo consciousncss. This drscussion ntlr:rclcdmuch intcrust,as it is ! marrcrof has controlersy \lhethtr IlcScl should bc int.rp.eled Fnlghlenment li8ure. or whclh.r lon rhr conaary) he reprcsents pc r hr pst hc hig h c n c R trc s ri o n l th c rd q l s r nd i mbi ti ons of thc o tul*ftkr. hi ny \icw. (ftrce $rs ck,scsl k) lh. rruth, whcn h. r c n[ r k c d t hu|ll l c g c l l (l rdn o r s i n p l y rr.j c erh c l :nl i shrcnnrcnr t l i dnr s l' ic l h. r , r ) o fl g i l n rc d .b u r r.n ,l !c d i r i n i , r,nore prol i )und an(t eonr plc \r r lion .l rs n r' (i o (c l r):l l 7 l i l r!rs l !rrf modi l l cd)i hi l i s. l l llc 8c l s ! nr hi\ r l c n (e l (' N :trd {h c ti n l g h l c l n rc nlrs suchi s cxphi ned l h) hr s . on! r elt r l h rr rl l i rl .d k , { c h tN c w h l l i l Ir(nni scd. i t must rnd lhc r r lit r call bc (i .)r' e g ri l rl r r n r{ c s rri s l !(r,)$sry. In hi s crrl i cr n \\trtr. Lnth nntl Xtu^ttuk . llcscl hr(l h(N rh6 $a\ pnnic'nrdc.l.'.r ularly lruc ol thc rchtkD 6+lwccn rcan)n and r)(h: far liom setlrnS rcasonrbo\c hnh In i pR)ptr mrnnor. lhc l:nlightcnmenlhad onl) succc..lcdin .crntr{xiucrnS nc* form of imlionalsm. bccause l oflhc simphnrc way In *hieh ir concci\cd ofthc rssucs rcliaious rhoughr | 52

r.i!c!: Philo$phy has made itslfthe handmaidof lhilh once morc (fK: 56), bccaus( lhe F.nlighrenment superlicialcnliqu left faith s lhat so rhar it is lo faith Ether than to the EnliBhtenment |!to|lchd. has rerumed.lt is in order to avoid this relum to an an$tlildophy ism thar sers the Absolute . .. byond Rason'(fK: 56) lhal carlier atlack on faith rnu$ be rcvisnd. and Enlightenmcnt's i. fhus. thorighHegelt*es into somcthingmore satisfactory. 'rlsolved in a scnse more rc'x,r/!h than many ol rht thinkcrs of lhe lith aspccrofconscn'usness lolightennrcnl.by secingit as a fundamental he runsdccp.hc doesso bccause thinks lhal othcrwiscralionalis'n i|t itsclf bcrome rrivillizcd .tnd one-sided.lcav;n8 ir luln.rahlc lo "ill oncc more. iith HcScl chrraclcrizesthe Enlighlcnmenls supcrticialrnd puruly lcgative vics ol fa(h al the outsct ofhis discnrsronin thc /'r(r,' lPurc ursighrl linows lhal flith is opNred k) purc nrsrghl. ro optxxcd r(l Rclson and rruth . . . llr secslinh In 8cDcr.rl hc prqtudicc'. and crors . Thc Drs*-s .r lrs\uc ol rupcrstilions. arc thc tr.trms of thc deceplid ol ,t /,,r.arrr,/ $hich. in ils cn!n)uJ .onecit. holds itself ro hc rhc \ol. poss$:or ol tnsighl i ends! s $cll . . lknn lhe nut idr ly aD dpursucsts orhcrsel l i s h peoplc btuu8ht rboul hy rhc lri.lcry ol and eonlirs(,n ol lhc holl. (lflr$s l;r ilscll lhc pricstctuli.despolisnr. *hich dcspiscs ol Lrndi stutcd donr in! t ion l t hc I ullilncnl ol it r nor i rd!rnl agc ( t dcsi rcs .rpri ccs.but rs it sellnl r h. sr t r r c inr . lhissNr r c iullrn(l r nr l cr or . dl Insi ght,hc srnl e l ncss " uplr sr ilr dn

.tt0

. liccd $rth lhrs llssuc ol sul]ers(rlx,n rhe llDl'lhlcnnrtnl scls oul l() hbB l ( rhf !fn.rrl Ir,,* " ! rl ' L pct 'nh.$hn- ( nr , ! h.s tf,..omccorruptcdhur $ho can bc brcu8hl ov.r lo puro insrlht : it thLrcli)rclinl's rr $rrpn\inglj_.!sy b loppl. tht rlols ol lijth. shich ,r l r conl i rnFI,{ rr h,' * ,trn,hr.,nrr,'l n, cn, nl) r Ll, E, , 'u-on\ . t {hnc\ ' I ' 'th. nc* scrpcnlol $rsd(inr rrrs.d on high lor dorltM has In lhis y w .y parnl csslcasl nrrcl t. $i ther edskin lllsr ll2l. Al lhc sam c timc. thc LnlShtenrncnt*-cs irstll as brinsir8 itx||n ! ktnd ol- nc$ .om. on thc sccnc *rth all lhc &wf, lor nrrnkrnd. rnd thus 'nusr 153

)
THE O I A T T C T I C Of ' PIiIT TH I D IA T E C II< OF s P IR II

farfarc of sn intellectualrevolution,'a a sbccr uproarand a violenr strusglcwith its anrnhsis(PSr 132). kt tbith and Knowledgc. Hegel inemorably calls rhe EnliShtenmenl a hububof vanitywithout a firm core (FK:56): h nowcxplores rhe emptincssofthisvanity in rhePhenonenok'et,aryring rharir loss allsubstrnce and inlegrityby failing to scethc realsignificance ofthe oud@k thar il altacksso conlmpruously: We havctherelbre seehow /r!/e irultrr and irrenrtr), behaves to In ils r.gulir3 attitudcro that 'othcr' which it finds conlronrinS it. Pure insi8htand antention which lalcs up a negaliveattitodc catr only b sincc irs Nolion is all .s$nriahy and therc rs nothingoulsidait rhc nlgative of nseli As insiShr.lhcrcforc. it bccomcsthe ncgalivc of pure invghl. bccomcsuntrulh and unrcason.md. as i lrnlion. it becomcsthc negative ol-0ure intcntion.becomes lic and insinccrityol purpose. a (P S : -132 ) IlcScl arSucsthat the shalk)wncss rhc Lnlighrcnmcnr of can be sccn in thc $!y in which rt\ supposcdlydelasrlrinr critique of relig(,us consciousness rcvealsitscll us srperficial in rhc .yes of fanh. Thus, againstl}c chim rhat the object of farrh docs not cxin oDlsidcthc beliclcas own consciousEss. belicvcrcan .cspondrhat th. lbr lion bcing 'ne* s'sk,m. lhis is wh.rt rt has always hckl. in ltcwtng lhc dcny and jl\cll $ onc (PSr l1.l) Slcond. this tirsr chrrgc is in t c ns nDwit h rh ec l a ' n th a lrc l i g i o u s .l rc l i s I de,repti on b bn,ughr ,rhourhy prir\rs and dcsn,ns:for if lh. obie.r ol linh is sonrerhing i/ h.lsereirc(i.how cin ir hc .licn ro n1): llos rlc dchrsr)nrnd dcccplnr r r o r nle t lae c s h e ( ((l rs (i o u s D e sis rr\ l rul h l us di recl l yl hc n .lrttlrttr t'l ttnll- *hcr In rt\ oblcct pos\e\\c\ 11 ,r? rr//. sincc rt Irbl N nnr l lhd ! r\ n n { | tr.(srts c l fi nx : i l )S .ll 5 6). In l bcr.l l cS cl chinN. thc l.nhlhr.nnrcrn s eonspmcy-thcon !'cw of rclg()n is s in) pl) I ner c dib l ro rh r b e l rc \c r: rh c i d e r o l d cl usrons quxc our of c i lhc que( t r , n { P S :l -l (,). Ih rk l . rh c h rl B h l c n n rc nl condemnsi ri h l br l worshippi'rg merc obtccrs likc picces ol sk'nc. bkrcks of wood or wrlijrs mrdc ol-br|:,rdihul ol coursc linh d(rs nor relere lny such mcrcly phl'sr.al things Fnunh.thc LnliahlcDmcnt arracks ttrblc os rhe n hrsr(trrcxldmumcnr: hur lirlh has no such rel,anceon e\rcmal 154

that .vidcnc. and only a rcligious consciousness has beenconuntcd thc Enlishtenment could think othrwisc(seePS: 338). l-inally,lh by rccussfarth ofa foolish &sccticism and self-dcnying EnliShtcnment for materialpmpedy. Bui faith casily showsthe worldliness dirEsard of purc insight ro bc cmpty of real valuc. in holdin8 'a mcal or the of6itrgs... to b e End in ilscll (PS: ll9). while als hypcnrical: 'IPurc insisht] atrrffi as ! pure intntionthe ncceslcing abovc acquisitiveness sboul the .ily ofrising aboven ural cxistence. nl.ans ofe)(islenceionly it linds il foolish and wronS lhat this clevalhn shouldbe demonstnledh,./eedJ; in orherwords.this pureinsight which feignsand dcmandsan i,rcr cl.vation. b in tuth a deceprion. thal ir is superfruous. f@lish. and vcn wrong to he D bor dclares aboutit. lo pul this clcvationinro a./!a/practice anl tunoni.crreir jiiak tlJ rdtft . . . Ir rs lhus rhat Enlishlcnmcnllets iiselfbc understood by faith (PS: ll9 -10). of Hegel then rurns ln)m an examindrion the !flliShtcnmcnts a.rilicalposition.to ns positive posilion.rgain as vicwcd thftugh the cycsoffaith: lfallprcludicc lnd suprrstirnn h!!c beenbanishrd.the $rcsrionariscs,llhdt n!rt:' tthut i! th! xltth Lnlightlrircnt ln\ fof that agatel in th.it \t!!.1:" IPS: -l4O).Hcrc dnecmore Hegcl sugScsts titr frilh crn righlly li'cl Lrnimprcssed. l;n, in sr ttr ds thc linlightcnrncnt has a pla.c Lr (n dt rll. ir wiil h. rs thc cmply (n ot dcism. cln be I hcr! rur&r' kr \hich no dclunnrnrtNnr. no prcdreurcs. rtlrihutcd- rPS: l-r(lr s..on . thc l lghrcntncnr rerums u\ lo rhe l i mpl i strc.mpi ri crsh,' l()h\cn,ng R. Aor 'lhr ( l- t bc I lnl'ghlcnm cnt vr dopts rhc l al ue+ yncnr,,l ul rl n\ . ir ndt |n r nslnr m . nt xl . w ol lhc world lnd olhers .[r\r rs c!crythrnSis usclll to mrn. so mu is usclirl t(x), rn(l his locrti(nr rs k) n l. himscli x nrcnrherol lhc 8()up. of kr uscto l hc.ommnr S o({ ltml s.nr ccnblc r ll {PS:l{l} h nll lhis. $r H c8cl chi ms.f.rrh s' l l rL\pond r h dr sgusl. \ l )L:pi r( rh,' . l l LE (l .,,!u$ . r 14-I nl, ! hr enm enr . nc: r n im . and Fnant rol c i n l brer.g l i rth k, d$pcn it s sclt 'und. lnandin8, n i n prcvenri ng l i onr h.e(rnrn8do8nr xli.im t ionalism :t hus.shile wirh lirilh thc linliShtcnnrent merely appears be io to u consciousncss hostil!. iD facr ir helps hfln8 our the \!a! in which llith lrics to mcdinrc lnd rcllrc (i(xl rnd mun. rclelari(n and reason.inncr and ourcr.nnd $ srop\ lir(h til,n bcconnn! (nc{dcd: Con{qucnlly, lthe 155

l Hr Dr ar t c T r c ot 5 PrR rr hnlight enm c nlls n .l l h c ra h .' nk ) l i n h . n o r c i n l i rl h,nsa\o* i r' (P S r :i:l,l) At thc sdnrctrnrc.th. linl8hrcn|Icnr r\ nrsolli.rcnth drllcclicll nbourrts dr2 po$rtunvrs-rilis lirth. In tlrhng (r scc ho* much conr m on gr oundt he y s h .re .l h u s . l i ,r.rx rp l c . $ h rlc rh. Fl nl ' ghtenmcnt helpskr rcmrnd l-ailhthrt (;r crnnot bc rlr.n n, rhc b(lteler. by r.lk th i nsi ingof ( ioJ ! s r ' pr q l u c t o fc .n s c o L N n c s.s cIl n l i ghtcnm.nt stson rikin! this ir r mcrcly nc8rli!c wa!, ls rl lr $crc lh.t.:by o\a'rttrri4t s l l- uilh. it houl s c c i n g h rl th i s i s !,m c th i n g th n l l i i l h crn Incorpofutc. ol ti f nl Lik c $r s e. lhe. n l i g h tc n n rcs r!c s l i ri thl i o n rth e$ofshrp nrerc n' l c ol $oo d .b rc rd l :b u l rl d o c si ) $ h i l c i l scl ll hl rkj rrg l hi ng\ r hinS s lone. ls hel r n r I iur c lynulc r i rl i \l rcn ri u rn c r n t. rh c I:n l i S h l .nnrcnt p\r!' mi f(1 Al un(l cF l i, lh ot - lhc ins i S n i l l e rn co l h r\l o n (!l c !tl c n c c l o rchgrous c t rh th nr ndnr g. r hi1.! r rh cs rn r{rrn re rn h n B rr \,c h .\ rdcn.ci s l hc onl ) sr\cs l i ul h S un s li, r hc llc l rh c r.u n b e l ' i ri l l )-. l fi c l ,n l rShre,ni r(nl lionr lfic htpocfl\\ .l rl\ ns..rtr'!n. shr.h In\oh c\ rhc r()l'ensacnticf ol s d) ds in x {r! rh rr,r c \\.n l ri l l \ n N .n ro gl (s: hut rga,n- r1' r Fn|ghlc nm c nl trc i r,r, q !,e l l \ ti o n rth rt \.l n l . nrr.r\m. k) l hrnl n' ! nk thl!|, a .tntl k) (onrrol rh. Jc',rc rnr pl.r!,r( hr' ,m\ \rgnrli(rnec Nonet h. l.' rs .h rl . th . l n l re l rc n n re ne rn h el pl i i rh kr d.\cl (Jl s r i nr o r m or c r op h r\trc x [rl..| g ro o \ \l rn d l ro rn li heneei t\ .l l i .rr\L \ !nec rt $1l L n . s \ l. r hiss ill r o r b . i n rn rc rl x tc l.rftrrc n t t(, ri r l h r(\el 1: Inr lr x lly s c c nr k, l h L l i rrh rn l tl ,x t rl r( l rIF h l cnmcnr hrs !n' pL) ( lc nn) \ c ( ir ll t hc o k l (c n rrn l i c ' h (r. otcr l i i th l, nlr s hr en n re ilrr. Ii ' ]rl s n ri rrc rn rb l e rul hontr_ rrc ri ,un l he h. . r us c . if l h e h c ,c \c , \ (\rr \ f r ! m r nc n l : $ h r\l i l n ,!h r.n ,i ,.,,r l ,:L 'fnrh rshcrl rrl rs | \ r r ir r . r n! th e .l l .rl .,' l l h \,L L rl ]l rrl \rrrn (.1' \.1\. rl ' h.hr\ r \ t r lt ^\ r r(l \ r.t rl i \fe F ro r.r!l .r{ rfL i ,rr h. /,(" r/,/r/ un,r! ol r r \ / , , n, i, ,,i ,i ,.,1 ,.,r. ,,,rr,/, r,! | o l l ,L r.rl \ V r,fi dl eon\er)u\' t r f \ \ s r r hr i \' .,rrh rL r[l \L ,l \( 4 \ri rr\ rr.rrl \ l o {i .\l ro\ the\oul \ hr r h1. , , ,r/r,' ,,/.tn ,l \i i r,, rrrrl \ \l h rrrr\i (n).h! l hr \rnrl \ ( n lhe t n( l o \l .rrl n !.rn (i ,,1 \.l l $ rl r.rn (l ' .I-l ul l i hl )crl Il rl .F rh r r r , nr . r or 1 .trr. ( r({ l r t)l rh . l r| !h l c n m l l l r\ r!l h$ kr (l t, . t r \ . r \ $Lr h rh ! !h ,,tL h tl ,,,. n t r.,tl r.rr,,r ,,,/r,rrl . sct.trl l rtri \ hr ( h r \ t r (' .,i ' n rl th (P S l l l { 156

r Ht ot at t clt c

or sPr Rr r

]i) thc rclgious bclielcr. thrrcforc. rl inrlinlly uppLaBthal trhrlc may clarm to havc k)und stislaction. lhc enlaShtcncd consciousncss it has lclt l:'ith brhind. Ilos$er. Hcgclobscn'cs,llith mty bc $rons consciousncss atrourthis, lix rt mly pft^c hnrde.rhrn thc cnliShtcncd thinks l() aehicv. srtrsliclion if il lcrvcs l-aith.slrun8cd rn lhts way. and utrl |nd sticksmcrcly ro a lh's'$o.ldly phrbsophyol nrulcn.llisnt rcmain srlislicdi can iilrirnrsm wc shlll scc $hcther F-nlightenmcnl thal yclnnnt ol rlf lroublcd Spinl which nt)urns olcr thc kiss of ils qti ri tunlw orl d l urksi n thc hrctground ( PS:l: lt ) ) . ' l Ic l i l i shrcnnrcnl .l l cgcl clNinr s. essent ir lly is spln bclwccn thc onc handr nd nlr lcr ir lst l) on t hc olhcr tw o Lrnrpi .oi dei s on whcrc in lier li)r horh c0nrD lhc ccnlrdl crlc8drics ('l (nd m(l nrrllcr hot | rc cql nl l l rh\rrcl rnd cnrpl y.U n der lying h.ho$ ! !nd r .ommi hren llo lhc hr ppin$\ ( n nr anlind s lhc l i al hunuri snr. \rl uc tfi l t i s. a co Dnnim cnt ulilr t r " I hc lr sclir l is n) fundanrorhl thc obtLctIn so lir r\ scll-con{c'ousnfs\p(nclrrl.\ rl r d hr\ In n tht irs cntovnrc t lrt\ /,.,,8t.,'!'//) .s/r,/i,rrf ol lfr trJ^kltun '.1. l\. \,trk|\ xre r.(on.ilcLl ind hcr\cn h rrun\thnrcri lr) c.nh Thr bck)$ (l ' s .15i 1l l .8.l hrs sl nr cd u\ . hdN. ! t r . t hit \ u( h oplr n sm i i prcnutrrr l h. rh.rdo$15cr\r I n r ht lall( r \ r n! t . |n , n r h\ \ cel( i1. cnl rtl d hn)l ol . l i .cdonr rnd Ttnor '. $h( r { li. 8. lr ) llc^ h, \ l m {r s .nul yss ol th. l rcneh R .rol ut!t' Ihe FrcnchRevolltion rn A s ri rN r e( nn(rrh rn(l si rrtLJ_ r |l'\ t ( r r l. llr gcl s lr cxlnlct l, , 1lhc l reneh l { f\ol ul knr rs sl r!!rurcdnr ir nr l N. nlqLr c, ) l l{( \ , \ \ er r . xn( i ol hrs f(ne.| 1r.D ()l l i c.(l onrrrh L\\ . . r r \ ( lr x, . s, \ . , , r lr t nunr cn{r s trrl rrc.l l nLl L)((ri on,l (l ,r.rr rcl er r r ( ( \ I ', l{or , \ \ . r , I n li. ! . l s ( I ! .us!,r,,' l rh. l rcfrh l {t\L,l uri nrfl$shcr . ( ( l l'l{ \ lf s. f li7. l'll tl tl l 5l l ' \\ l l 0 l ' )r l l os.\.r. I nr he er \ . ( n llclcl- \ r t r h\ , \ , n r hc I R .\,,l nrr ,r rh. /' rrr,,r,,,,/,,!r. , t , \ I n r : r ( rnol x \ r t r r nlc nlr r . r lo R( rd.nr,l \ $hrr r\x.rl \ rl r\ ,rb(\,r i, \ \ . . o s Po\ r t r nrt hr t llet cl , \ . r t |er/rnF hcr.. iorllha\ ro \ho$ rhrl n rs Rous\ertr\ Irt,rrt' or liccdonr th{ t r\ ((nl rrl ro l hr\ l c\l l )o i nl rc ree( rt\. Il .S cl \ r r gu lcnl r \ \ uPlo\ . r t t o r L\ l on x (rt' (l !e i ,l R or\\.n( \ .ontrrel rn ! ir \ nr . $ht r c lr . f ( lt t r nI n \ ot r . t \ r \

I HE

D IA LCTI<

O F SPIRIT

THT OI ALECTI < O F 'PI RI T $pca$ that oothinS now stands in th way ofhis cbiln to disccm the tcncral good: '[Elach. undivided from rhe whol, alwrys does evcrytbing. and whsl ,ppars .s don by the wholc is ihe dirccl and consciousdecd of cach' (PS: 357). TskinS lhis to bc Hgel's objcction. Judith shkla. puts Hegel s diagnosis oflhe problcm raisdby the Rcvolutionas follows: Each individual nor only decidesfor himselfwhat is ueful for irslfas him bur also what is genemllyusetul.Each will regards ofrhc gencralwill, which aloneis valid. bul a perfectcxprcssion which cannotbe found excepl in the prfect union ofall wills. That precludescompromisernd srlbmission.Indeed,lhe two seem identicalnow. For each one spaksfor all. nor only for himself To accept the dccision of anothcr pcrsof, is, rhus. to berrayrhc gcncml will. of which onc's own is an inseparable and surclypcrltcl pan. Unlessall a8rce,thereis no scneralwilli lbr cach onr rcslrds his own will as the conecr generalwill. since agreemcnt impossiblc.galen the muhiplicity ofactual is *ills, only anarchyis conccilablc. An'thing clsc is a limiration upononc s w rl l . ( Shkl. r 1976: 1756) s On Shllar's .cading. IleSel app!.rrs to bc rrSuinS that Rouss'ro lo docrpie of fredonr cncoumscdindivrduals hclicvc thar rhey could cach spcakfor th. Bcncrnlwill and thus act on bth ll ofall. with thc no emcrScd. disanrous result thrr wh.n drllcrc;'jc and djsagrucmenr $as possiblc.bcclusc no one was prcparcdlo acccpllhal compfornisc they rnrghrbe mrstalcn: Whrr rcDurnsrs an ,nrrchy of wills. which Hc8cl jmputed ki Rotrss.ru-stc(hnr8s (Shklar 1976 175.cl:.rlso N usscrl qqs: 1961. tlowclcr. oncc i8rrn. il llcgcl rs rcrd in this way, n lealcs his trcatrncntol th! Rcvolulion uopcrsuasive a crilique of Rousscau. as lbr il secmsclc r thrt ltous\clu nclcr thouShl lh.l clch indiliduul could .laim dircel and onfRlhlctrrrli. acccss lo thc genernl wrll. Indccd.rn B@k ll. ( hlptcr:l ol thc.\i,.u/ (,rrrrd./. Rousseau 8q:s our ofhis way to cnrph{srzcthnt cnchofus as individualsmust rccupl our l al l i bi l i tyi n di sccrnrng S cncr r lwill. $ lhul we canonly know thc whal it is $hcn rhc drsl()ni(ns erc,rtld by ou. plnicular inlc.cslslrc 159

prcscrvcd thmuSh lhe locial conlrad. as fredom ro do as one likes is exchanged fo. fftdom ro live by laws ofone's own (ct Sulcr 'n6ting l97l: 55. WoU.r 1998:46, Frdnco1999i I ll l4). T.Inul supponfor this rcadingcomsmainly from th. Phihtophtol Right, wherHegcl's criticbm of Rousseaudppearsto be that jndividuals here rcmain commined merly lo thcir own inlerests, $ tial thc rcsult is a facrional war of all againstall (see PR: !i29. p. 58; $258. p. 2?7). Howevcr. defendcrsof Roussau have Dornlcdoul thar rhis criricism is mis, guidcd: for n seemslo overl@k his crucial distincrionbtwecn rhc will ol all' and rhe gcncral will', wh.e the laner is iaken ro be thi,, rnore lirndamental a frce society.and ro cons;stin more rhanjust rl lo (See Roussau 1994:Bk Il, Chap. l. collctionofindividual interests. p. 66. Ci Wokler l99E:46. 'He8el. following Fichrbforehim. ncvcr noticedthal Rousseau\accounlof the Senenl will pnainedspecilic.lly to a collective will, .escmblinS [Hegel\] own notion ol the lllsm.ine mll.. r'j.thctthan to a compoundof panicularswhich, !s Roussaude*nbcd it. would have been mercly rhc will of all.' Ci als oF r anc o 9 9 9 :9 l 0 . R i l e y l 9 9 5 :2 1 2 2 .a n dTayl or 1 1975:.]72.) Thus. even if Hgel is riSht lo scc thc Revolutionand the Teror as arisinSoul of a kind of individualisticlitnzy, it secmswronsheadcd to trace the roots of this individualism back ro Rousscou. when his conceptionofthc Scncralw,ll is sell-consiously and fundamentally (as collcclavist llcScl himsclf acknowlcd8cs: tLr .sl6:12.p.2ll3t. scc Morcoler. evcn if HeSelca. bt dcf(ndedon lhrs poinr, rhcrc 's also .n Inlerpreratrve issucherc. litr in rhe P/r.a,D.r./,,qr ar lcasl. tlcgcl s cririqueofRousserudocsnol appcrr to li)cuson his supposld (althou8h Hc8el :; .cmark concrminS indi!idualisr conrracr.inanism 'a S c ner al $ill. r h c s rl l o l a l l D tt^ rh n ' ^ rs s u(h {P S : 157) may pcrlup\ br tak.n ns r rclcrenceto rt). Rarhcr.rt rny rnrplicncrincism ol Rousscau berngvorced(hc rs nor mcnrroncd nrme). ir is thc is by opporite one: namcly lhrt it is Rousscuu conceplron th. Aero.ll s 0f w// lhrl is problcmaue(thc lenn ///A.rr..rr, ilill rs used scv!.!l irnrc\. thouSh snncrrmcs Miller rranslatcsrr rs Bcncrul*ill . rnd (h e , nr c r ' m c ns un rv c N rl$ rl l :s c c PS : 1 5 7 rn d 1 60). rhj sradi ng. s lleScli objcctronts lhdt bccausc eeordrng Rous*nu every auronto otrurs individualcan trnnscend dislon()ns ot desiru.self-inrcrcsr. thc and lic,xl poriion. hc is lbcn gilcfl thc nghr tr) spcuk for all. a ir 158

I HI

DIALTCT

C Of

SP]fi I

TH f

OIA LTC IIC

O' ' P IR IT

'canccllcdour'ih.ough ugrccnr(nts xrn\cd nr b(rwccn us. Likewrse. In ll(!,k M-haprer I hr liltl1Nsl) chrnrs thal whcrc ! cirizcn hnds hrn\clf rn a mrnorirl. rbrs \ho$\ lhot he srs mrsrakcnabour lhc gcncral wrll. and thlr !s ru.h hc \hukl ic(cpr rhc democraricdecrsnnr.Thus. Rousseruhrmscll s.crN k, trrrn l8rrnsl rakinp seriously t hc idc alhal we c o u l dr!e r b c rb l c k ' s tl ) l h a rr\ tndi vi dul l s. e knos * whit is in t hc p u b l rcIn te rc \t n o r n ) rn l s (' n o l pol i l i crl prdcss: l l p lhcre qcrc no ditl|ring rtrrrrc\ts.qc sould s(rncl) be a{rrc of rh. eom m onint er c s r. i c h s o rk l n e !c r D rc d rry dbsrl cl cicveryrhi ns rh *ould r un by ils e l l :rn d th c rew o u k l l o l ,n rS eh c rny sti l l i n pol i l i ci r ( Rous s c au 199 :l 6 i r n .) l r $ o u l d th c tc l i ,rc c cnr sgui dcd cl aj r : s nri to lhr l Rons s . r u d o c rri r. o l th c g e n c rrl$ i l l n r ernsthr! i rdi !1du!l s s s hur ld s c c t hc D rs c l \.\ rrt)u h l .,,l n rl n ! ( b chrl l ol i l l . dnd l hus r: lo. i\ { ) oilc Ro u s s c l u i rc .rl ! \l l l l h c rfrr(l \ or \r]l s thrl $rch.r d d, f , t nncni{ hl b n n g .!b o u A d' t r d o p rro nrs 1 o .tr!!t rl n r l l .g c l o htr.r.d r,) R ou\\$u \ ( loc t nn.ol lhc g e o e rl ls rl l . n o t b ..rr\r,r,r[d c rt ru) & r, tor i nd,\ (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 \cr ol r ndr \ i( iuul\ o u l dc h rn r l !Srrrn re ! In r rh c I N ]rrrr.ttrurhonr! or e let r oos .F or t he p ro h l c n r o tr rs h o $ \u e h In r I\r(l url \.nn el ai nrt() n \ pc ! l l- ort h. ge n c fu$ rl l . s h c r o rh e a r)' \e e rhctrr l xs..pr.$nrrf,e t r r er c ly r lr . ulrr rrl $ .s ts r(l n o r th c u n r\c ^rl $rl l : ()n rht dnr pr hr nd.J r he c m m c n tl l u l l .\ rl l ()th c r { tr\(i url \tronrrtsrcr. rnd go\ .\e In on lh. ot h$ ha n d .i t th c rc b v .( s trl u l e rrts .L l go!(ri i rncnt i thxr i s r s f . . r li. \ ! ll. ! n(l \) s trfd s(' | B\c d rr)l h c !f rrd srl $ rl l : r(rr\equcntl r-. r r r \ r b! r ur . l! In rp o \{ h l . trr i r ro .\h rb rt rt\cI r\ nn!rhrrg ct\e hr r r / , r r ( , r - 1l,S l 6 l r) | | | \. i n j tIr\ rfrd n !. tt.!. \.rl rqu!,(n
la.Lr\\.r! r \ 1 r . n h . L ii) c\ jr ,il \h t\\ ljL ,\ lr tr jr lh ( t)j nl ot\rf$ol l hf

I ndr \ r r lur l- r r o ' h l r,r\ \rrh rr rh . r, f ..rtr .l x rr r,, rctr(s.nr rh. r ! ( n. r . r l \ 1ll x r d rh u . d tfr. . l .!rrrrr.trL r, rr. rltr\\fr. r\ l he rndr | \ r lur l f , ur r l\ . ,\\ \.,! rh ,,r rIx r .,,,rh rtr r. .rfl | | Lrr r nreret\ r\ r r k lL\ r t l! . r Lr \ r ..t.,. .,n ,1 ' r, j r(\r\r .rn n\L (l r,,1\.nhn^\ rr i ( | b n llr ir lr r r , r n l( ) N.1l .l r. l h u \ t(n l l L !!l th . t\ft' h l eni ho$ l hc qcoci nl t)t $r ll f . t t r r r lc on I { l .r.n n rn rr. t(trrnr\ l ,trrt.rn \nnn xsIi n! $hcrhrr r(, lc gr t r Dr t . nt r r h (tr,r\ rn b c f\f,(,\c l l rr rl l l lo\ !rn rhc !cn. l e \Lll dI . c r r h. r l r,o n \ o frh . \r.,r( | L rL \ x t$ i \\ rr.,t.rtc\h-rnd-htutrl 160

ntdrlidu.l: *ho musr act .nd dcc c lartcrs o! .onrnron Inlcrcsr')) Agrrn. houc\cr. rt is .rguablc lhrt th,r cnrr.rstrrrr unli!rr k) Rous\e.u: t(tr hc rncs hnrdto o\.rcomc thr\ pn)hldn. by'c\phrnrn8. li'r cxanrplc. loq it r\ rhrt prniculnr krnd\ ol dcm)errtrc pn)c.durc catrand should th. tr takrn hy.rti/cns as dctenninrng g.ncrul srll. so thal the Scntral be hy. thl * rl l hrs r (ontcnr r nrsr h. l e e. pr ed lllnnd. ! n l. Silr r nalely so & l cd ul l on.l l .gcl does nol cng r g. $r lh lht sc su88cst nns. as. thr\ kr,l s trnch.ri trbl c r d r ll- lnund. ( i. .ri l kl Lrc inr A ti,rtrlhoplknr is lo rrglc rhrl llc8cL blxnr.d Rousscau thc Rousscr u l ol Tcrrorhccri l sc l hc krnd.l .o nr r ilLr l( nr rnr t ur r gcr ncnls .uppoaf(I.tr, prrl !(uhr hrs hoslililylo lhe r del|ol polr lr . r l . cPr cscnt lntrr. nr^l limtrNlt rnd ti)r..llily erfruss((l rn ln\)k lll ol fr. gr' n t t, tnd s(^.r.rgnl ) e r iior bt r c|r cscr lcd.li, r t ht sr m . n trl sor l hrr rr e!rn(n h.l r!rN l crcd: ir . ( si\ r scssct r lr r ll\ r hegcncr ! l w i l l . ud rhc $r1lrrD nol bc renr c\ . r r . d:r r r s ll\ ell . ! r r , s \ oDr clhr ng cl $. th.r( ,\ no orhcr po\{ b,l ' r \ lh. l{of lc ' d. Pur , r sr t . nol 'ls rlprcslrnlxr\ rs. l herclilr(. ,rt.Jn lhe) be. hur !,. on1\ rl\ rgcnls: lhc\ cl nnot r!rl . (l .l i t,\. tj ..rnons \ n\ l. f \ r hr r lhr |. d[ 'lc I n lcr \ on h{s nor rrl rti edh \i rtl rl rs fot J t r s lR( {r , . . r u l( ) L) l lt llll. ( h! t . f5. p l :rl N ,r\- n thc I' hot,"nr "h, r \ ll( S! l nr lle\ r nunr b. rol' kl. r.l crcn(e\ to rhr\ R oussc.u,,xn n r hr l t hc e( nclr sLll . r nnot hc r t r L ! {t r f r r l sr Ll' nnr.\cnr(tl . \trl rnSl hrr Inr rh. R. \ olut lir r r r . \ "Lin. r Lcnlr \ \ enr . ( i ' rs n(' r l hc rnrtl ) l h.rsl n or r Nr ll shr eh t or Nr : r \ $\erl h! r ref.c\eri rnti \. l l )s : l5r ') . r nr l r hJl \ . ll: ( , ! r \ cn\ sn$s l do(\ r(' rl l qr ,l \cl l hc rhtrl .(1 ,\,r or r . r lr l) l) ) h( r r ! , ( f , i'\ , ?, / , " I n l r{ ntl ri s i ,r(l L,ri \.r\rl rtrl r.n ( lS: r 5t ) ) .Nl, ! e( \ ( r . , , , lh. / 'r r l, , \ ( t,l Ittht.l l .!.1 g(' .\ (n,r,il hr : sr \ lt ) ( lelcr r lr lif lf g lr r ir . r ( y) l' ' tt/| \rrrc.,n( l1Lr r r r I r f . r d. r r ir if r . t r \ cc l'l{ r q. i\ r(trc\(rl xrrri $ rl hrr rh. l \ rl r\ I I l )t .i .l h r0) n', t \ h. , f b. ! \ r , lr r n I n r nr ln! \t .rh.l (\\. shrl . l l .!. r too" .ru r. h! l ,t\r,l . r,' rh. f' Lt f , ll. ( n r . f r . \ ( nr . r r , ', n., nl\ l) r l. h. ,,Ifrj \,r (nj r , ' , cf r f \ ulr lr \ c \ r , L, . r oI f \ h\ . d I rI.,r nr\ hJ\( rh(!1,!Ir f .,, .cntrrl nLe In rh. R .\,,Lurrn, t r jr r \ . , , Llil\ ! r r n, r h. lf r or ' ll. gel | | l l n(r rrr.\ th^ (' tt.\,rrnr b.i( \ I ' r e( nl( ( lr r ( [ ( 'l lr ( cdonrr hr r \ rpn(r^ r,, hr\( l i l rl en, (l o $ rl h R, r r \ . . xu- , r hr ron. e r sr r n Ro( r \ \ t . u \rgN ri .n.r hcr{ t hr n , ' r r . , ||r r t r r ll} {r f f N\ cd T{rr cc F rrtui hl ! l cs\ ehi t tl i r\.t!,(!prru or l l tf(l trn , \ . , r L\nt ( f *r r \ li^r r o lo, , l r t shr l

\
THE DIA L C T I C Of S PIR' I TH E D IA LTC J IC OT 5P IR IT

to Hegel saysaboui rhe Revolutionin lhe Inlroducrion his Phik'lopht .y' Riarr, where Rousseau not mntioned(cl also PH: 442 3/Pw: is

2r 0 l 2) .
Hegel s .eferenc the Revolutionoccu6 here as pa.t of his lo general discussion ofrhe will. duringwhich he lries to resolveaiension in our conceplionoflhe willing subject.On the one hand.he argues. we seerhc subjcctas 6nite and panicularized: that is. in acling the subject d@s onc lhing ralher lhan anolher (chooses rcd paint over painl, chNses to becomea philosopher ralherthana slatesman). Sreen and hence is delermjnate and dill-erentiated from other subjects through its rclions and lile-choiccs. lhc olher hand.he argucs.wc On also scc rhc subjccl !s infinitc and unilcrsal'. in $ far as nothing prevenls the subjecl tiorn actinS diffcrently. fiom picking another courseol aclion (l ,,r/z/ have chosengreenpainl. and I ."r/../ have chosen10 be a srirtesman). Now. the rensionanses.becauseit may 4pcar 1o the subjectthrt il-in l-aclil docs chooselo do A ralher than U, thcn this will comp.omisc unilcrsdlily . bccruscthis choiccwill ils rule out various options for il (once I hrve decided lo become r pbilosopher. hecohing a slaleenansill be extremel) difiiculi if not impossiblefor me). As a result. Hescl elnrrns,lhe s bjecr may be tcmplcdto lhink il would bc bcller kr rcftuin fionr nuking nny choiccs at all. and lo .cl in suchx wdy {s lo kc.p dll otlions opcn i bul. hc point s .t hiswi l l a l s o .x L l u d c c n .i n o p l i d rs .R.l her.f{egelrrgues. out thc lvay to olercome this tcnsion is lor lhc sublccrlo rdentrly itsell wilh it s c hoic c sn ) th a te \e n l h o u g ho p l i l )nA ru l es opti onIl . thi s . out d oc snot Nppc r r o th c $ l r c c t rs rn y !)d o f l i mi trti (nr, t bccrusc A nr i l s r r s r r c f lc . t io no fi ts o w n e s s e n ti rl a tu rcw h i.h i t docsnot seei n n , Il As llegel ptrl: rr rtr h\ frtriJrcd rcnninol(r!!: Frccdonrrs kr will unc t hr ng dc ler n rn rl ey c l l () h c s i th o n l rc l l J l .i !k' rl rn Ihi s del er. m inr eyand lo r e tu fl r re c n ro rcl o l h e u n i !.rs x l ( l ' R : \72. p.-11). l c o l fuls lhc s x nr cpo i n l l .s s l i ' n r.l l y b u l rl g re N l clrcn8l hrs fol l ow s: A $ll t hu l re !)[c s o n n ()rh rn 8\ n o l rn a el url w i l l i the chrri r c r c r lc s nr!n c n nn c v c rrc s o l v c o n rn l th i n sl he rcrsontc,?n4 s ln. such indecisrnrmty llso lic in rD ovc. rcined sensibilitv $h1c hk now sl h a l .i n d c i $ n r1 n l n s o me l h i ng, eni ershe real m it l g ol liniludc. a l i mi r o n i l s c l l rn d re l i nqui shrng l nrl y: i nl 'mpoin! 162

yet il does not wish to renounccthe totality which rl intendsSuch a dispositiontccnfll is dead,even if its aspimrionis ro be beautiful. lJfh()everlspires to great things . says Coethe. can 'must be able to limit himsell' Only by making .esoluhons $e humm being cnl.i acluality. however painful the process may bci for incrtia would rather nol emergejiom that inward brooding in which it resenes d universalpossibilrtyfor itsclf But possibilily rs nol yel actualjly. The will which is surc of itsclfdoes nol lherelb.c losc itself in what ( delenn'Des lPRr I l3Z. p. . {7) lo be to As his rcl-erenccs inward brooding and thc nspiralion indicrtc. l{egel was herc in part cn8lging with a Romantic beauliful longing fo! lhc wholc mrn'. who h.s nol become 'limiled by lhe ofmodem exincnce: bul (rs his laler discus specir|l7ali(in increased lion ollhc beaulilulnNl in the P,.rdrk,!,1)st will show) Ior tlcgcl. l hi s l onsi ng w as nri spl aced.. s hc belicvcdlhll only wit h som e limitilbn do.s the individudl llke on a mcininslul lilc As hc puc $is poinl in thc l,gn: Man. il he wishcskr be ac$rl. musl be-there' lndrhen. and b lhis cnd he musl sct ! limil l() himscll Pcoplewho .rc lowa.dsthe linile nevcrrcreh aclurlily, but linger lon in loo fastidious p l: 16) {Forlnnhcr rnd l hci r l i ghl di esaw. y ( Fl. : rbst.adi on. "s922. see discussion. Sl.rn l9ltq ) Now. H.gcl s conrnrcnlsrbolr thc ltcnch Rcvolulion corue bclitrc he has rcrchcd this rcs)luliolr oflhc lcnsi(tr bciwccn unile& sal i ty and Fnreul ari l y i rarh$. hc lr cr ls lhe l_r cn. hRclolut r ) nas B radi gn[l i c ol ]usl l hc l ,,xl or ' t ) vcFr clined scnsibilr yt hat sccs rnythi ng pl rl rcuha or ' d.r{ nri nr lc r s u hnr it . li( Don r ls iiccdom . rnd rs $rrcthi ng l i orrr$hrch rl r lr ould st cpbr . k : ()nl t,n. aV rl / ol l hc s i l l is ( lclincd e ndnr elylhlsr r n) / r / t ' her ol dh\ttdl ttkr liom . ! cr y dclcm inr t r i) nin which I nl l i hi ti ^ l i nd nl ys.l for rhi ch I hr\ c po{t . d in m ysell:ih. f lighl liom t c!cry .onl cntas r l rnri l rl r onll t h. \ ! ill dclennir . snsell- in h's or way . . . lhis is ,.,J..drr, riccLlonr the lieedonr ol rhe undcr srlnding. This is lhc liccrlou ol lhc void. which rs raisedto the slrrus ofan actull \hunc rDd lassioo lf it rcmainspurelv theoi \ rcri ealn hccomcsr l hc rcligi( nrr ealmlhc llindu linr licisntof . 161

l fra o r aLr c r r c oF tp rR rT purc conlcmplalionr ifil rums ro lcluality, ir bccorncs thc but in rcalm ofbo'h polilics and rcli8ion ihe lin0trcism ofdesrruction. dcmolishinE thc whole ex;sting s()ci!l ordcr. climinaring alt rc8rrdcdas suspeciby a grlen ordcr. lnd annihalnr'nd'vrduals Ing any orSrn'/lI'on which allemprsto nsc up ancw. only in destroyrnS vmdhrng doesrhis ncSarivc willhuvcr fcclintsofils own c\islcnec l/)dr(lr). h may well bcl'!'!c rhat it wills some positi\c cond(x)n. for instance cobdrt|i)n thc ofunivc6al equalny dr ol u n rl rr$ l rc l i fk )u sl a l i . b u r i r d (E{ nor i n l i rct$i l l th( pos ili! cr c n n l l l y o l th rsc o n d i ti o nl.(i r l h i s rl onec!r!er ri scl o \ onic lin{ l o l o n l c r,I p d rrrc u l a ri z rri o n thdl rrsl rl ul i ons of bo rnd indi! idL( l l sb u l rl rs p rc c i s c l y ()u 8 hth c n nrhi hl i (nr pani ci th ol uhrjly and ol obt.ctivc dclcrurinatn)n lhc scll coDsciousness lhat o! lhrs ncgrlrrc liccdonr fiise\. Thus. *hrrcvcr surh liccdonr b( lic les l, k ,rl rh x ri r $ rl h c a n rn rrl e l l l r , 1r(rl hc no nrcrc than nn rhstfu.r rcprcscnklronIli,^r,/r,rl. and lcrualiz 'ts t(nr can onl) I'c rhc lun ofdcsrructirni . ll)urnr8l rhc Reign ol lc r o n th . l rc n .h R c \o l u ti o D .l l drl l i r.n.cs or ml enrs lnd rurlr)fi1) scrc {'tlx)srd rr) b. c!n..ll.d our ldr^r.r,h(?]. T h' s wl\ | trn rco l trc m b l n g a n d q u l k rngrnd ot-rnr(tcftnce tosaftls (\(rythrng plnrcuhr. litr lirnrricrsnr srlls or y $hntjJ xbstruct,nor whrl r\ rrlicuhrcd. so th r $lc .!cr dir'lerences cnlcrge. il fin(lslhcn incomprtiblc $rth its own indctrnninac! r nd . nr eel sIh c n rl r.h / \n .d l n T h rsrs \rh ! rh! p| onl c.duri ng lhc |r.nch Rrvol rnr. dc\rrolcd oneem!! rhc ulronslhe! 'tr\l h! ( l r hc nr s (l \erru tc (1 . e c ru s c l rD n u r \ !,c In(onrtrti bl .' : h rJ Nt h r l' ( r h l rre ' ' c l l -e o n s c ro u s n .stsrl tu rl rr\ o tl )R \i rn(l \i /. tf rr{ 9l Thl\ hncl (lb(u*r a ntc I'hiL)\t' ,/ /li(r/ \ h.lplul_ hc(ru:. ll ^ \lr os \ Nh. r li, r ll .s .l !i rd c rl rc s c n ri s r.l .n (r,rl (r,ro, !on\!khnr\: th rl lh. t r nr . or lr cn .h R .ro l u ti { n r.n ! s ry rh x rIn toh.r no rcl crl ncc i k) Rous s c x u: n e l !. rl th rss l a n d p o i rr o l (k th rl th. sLrbl eer ti ec nl|r rh h is o nl! r l r l r \ in s $ t{ tci ' { h rc h a l l p r rc u [n ty (such | s soeral cs, l rol clx s \ e\ .r , r t l eon s rrru tl o nl rl e ti o n si ) rb o l i s h cd. i rn s shel us l ar l t.8.l th. pn) f c r( on. c tl rf o !-ftc c d o m l ()u s th rt th f s uhtcel l i !c $ h!l !l crn rht \ r \ r n& r ur . \ \\rrl i o u r c rn S l rn rtl c d o r d rn rr r\hc(, r\..ordnr! i ,, b
164

TN E

Oi A IE C TIC

OF S P IR II

ttegcl. r suhieclm.y llnd lhal its tlacc wilhrn societyis very dintrcnt without lhcrcby lteling thal il is rendcrcd fron thoscol othersubjccls. 'uniitc . in so lirr as lhc subreclc n hc ,.i ri(, rn this dc|crmift|cy' th opposcd idea (ci olso PR: 1207.pp. 218 9). Thu\, whilc Rousseau he dl of plnical rcprcseniation lhe lcSisltrrtlcleYcl bccaus slw il ns irrnrlir of !rcrcrgnty from lhe pcoplc kr invol!rng ltn unrccepmble on thcir rcpr!'scntllivcs. Hegcl s r.cotrnl thrsoppositionhasa \ery d'l' ol fcrunl sNrcc. Fo. H.8cl. il com.r lionr lhc unwillingness individuds r(' rolcrrl. any pani.uhn/rl,on .lnd hco.c nny idenriticaliorwrlh thc krnd ofconcretesociNlstnrelurc\and rllltrcntranon that repr.scnl 0l l vc!orcmmrnl rn!ol vcs. As w. shnll now sc. in nlorc dclurl by boking at thr /'r.r,_ ' m.{,/,,ri r. l l c8cl $rnl s l (, l fuc. h r t k t hc hnr t r cr snrof lhc'ler r or( ) jusl this concctlnn of unr!er\rl(r_ . lhxt lrclls prnrcularily as ntnc' thinS rhc {rhtr'cl must cs(nc or o!.r(oDrc. lrrsr ol all. lltgcl rgL,c\. I cor$oousncss r(J nrovcsf(nD \cotr8 ils.lfs ! dcsiritrgsubjecr. sLcrn8 j oi nsett u' ., \rl l nF ' uhl c.l . i \ rl r hxnd, , n.lhe r dc, '1, '! v ur r hl\ nr ,'f rl|nctrm. of irL(.j'rn hJ'(,| ,{r lhc *rll. rhu. r{rh(r thJn hvu$ rishrn! t() srlNt,y ns pani.ulrr dc\tr$. thc indrr,'jurl nos selt thcnl | l i dc rnd \.es i {sel frs l hc un^fa. l Suhicer(' PS: 156) Ile oblcel rnd th. ltrrnerrr i,ll ,/r/.t,r ( hx\. hcrc lon rlre r nrti nrn8ol !rr^. \hi ch $r s lhc f r c( licir c of 111 er l hlr r r f l h.gin ils nucr r r et r t in t hc obi. ct r s il do$ rror conse(,u\ncss r l hri * crc l nncl hrng dr,, I r i'f r $hr eh 1rr ir slhls kr r ct ur D t l( ! r \ ior n. onscr nr {r . ss 1l\ cll. rl scl l lon thc conl rnD .l h( , ) hleel l hc Jnl i l hesi ' r,{ n\r:. rh. r et ur . . ! ) l. l} if r l'. dillt r enec h.r\.cn rhe,,,/,rr/ra, rr,l r |c n, , {, ! , cor \ e( t sne\ \ ' hur r ht L r \ . ll , \ ( lr r eer l\I n r r \ o\ n c) . \ r hr l 1n(l nk[ l e,[* i { ^n... ol r n i r 'lht \ r \ . r r r \ un'\ . r \ r l shr(h h.(l onl \ ' 11..,,,/,/ , / r , ( PSr li7 r i) (h.. rl l hrnksol rl scI i ,\' 1,n1\( r \ 1l r n lhi\ t ! lly. llcSel t r r gu. s. hc t w Indr!xnurl i l l nc l orrg$ i .f.tl lhr l lr r cly is pr cper lysluct ur c( i tnnnr(l(LIl ci dn \)ei rl rr{rts. li! r l r LlcclsNny kind ot p! t l'cul'r r rml ron ol l hi s son.N hr.h l r(.rl \ r h. lr hlc. t r s dcllncdor ll\ cr l h! ir \ rrrhc, . Ll r I r f lr lhc \ ubiecr1s! b] e r r ) nst tl { (. rtrl hc !)ei rl (tr(l cr.

r65

I
I FlE DIALICTIC O F sPIRII

above this kind of determinrtion. lnd adopia purely unilcrsal nand each individual consciousness raises itsell our of ils alloned sphere.no longerIlnds its csscncc and ils work jn this panicuhr sphc.c.but Srasps ilselfas the MrD, ofwill. grasps spheres all as rbc csscncc ofrhis will. and therefo.ecrn only re.lize irsel{ in a rork which is rhe wo.k of the wholc. In this absolure tieedo'n. thereforc.lll social groups or clr\ses which irc the spinlu.l sphereslnlo rhich lhc wholc is rrliculated .tre {bol ishcdi lhc indi!idual consciorsncss th.t belongedto.iny such s nhc r cr n d w i l l .d a n d l l l l i l l e d i l s c l l i n i t. hi s pnrande i ts l i rni . lalioni its purpos. is lhe generalpurposc.its hngnaS. unrvcrsal law. ils s o rk l h c u n i \c rs rlw o rk (P S :157) Now. lle8cl r.gucs hcr.. tusr ds hc docs lalcr in rhc /,rir,vfrN o/ Risrl. that rhis coneeption ofthc uni!ersal subleel is pkrbl.matic, bc c r us cil s eem s h a l e n o ru o n l o r' p a rti c ul ari /atron: n,i nds to tu t hlt qur s ubjc c t,t i s u n w i l l i n gk , to l c ra rc n y d.ternl ratc neti on. i a o. constilulion.or rolc wirhin rhc starc. lhis sccmsk) limit its lieedonl as lu lhdr nl. ( Lf In rh u(l .n r' fl ,' l /,r4 r. t ,u r Jl rr) u.,ul .l l rr\( i h( s ignr iic anc c .l \p c e i l i c b o n .l i tl r i t tl o u l d c casco bc i n rruthuD i a l tc vcrsll sclirconscn'!\ncss. Lrnircrs.l irc.donr. rhcreforc.crn pftr duc enc it hc r p o s i ti !cs o rk n o r r d e c d :l h c rci s l .l i l i tr rr orl ! ,{,U dl /t| t uc li( nr :is nr c r c l y cr,r' d J (l e n ru c l i o n(P S:l 5t)) il th thr' srnrermc. l ^r I hc s ubic c r c s .l l R \l )c .r i ,r th e n re rc n i \ i i l u.l i t\ or' orhers.rs los !J f r nic ! lur s c l\ c \ $ i l h l h c j f o $ n rr!x i i n l rl e \sh \ cs. N n(l sl rtl c:i Itrr lhc T . r or ' T h( n ,l c s o rk rfd d c c do l trfi tc 6 rl l i ccdonr th.r.l nre rs , t udl/ ,N d. r llr r ,ri \l i re h h r\ fo l n n .r \i g n i l i !ri ec (r l i l l rng.l i )r $h!t . , \ r egdr c d i. . . rh e]n rl i \rd L r!l l l h c c n rtq l ro i nt thc nh$l urcl v ri cc r\ ol I \ c lll I r r s r hu! r h . (o k tfs rrn (l rre rrc n o l rl l d c xrhs. i th no n1(reri 8 w nLlit nf c e nc u tl i n ! o l l r h c r(l()l c rb f' r8 co r $ rl l os i rg I nrourl rtnl lhx ol $ c i ( P S : -l o l r).l l o n c \.r. rh (rc rr p o { c r qui ckl } fi nd rhntrhe c r lr ^nr s . . lhe n rr\ | n )i trn 8th c i r l rc .d o n i b ) rrl cntpti nS Imposc to ( nnen) t l df n) c i .l (n ,c ru rc u fo n th c n r' Ih c !o !cnnnent, w hi chw i l l s a d c \ c . ut esils $ rl l i i { ' n ' t| 8 l e fo i n t. rr rl c sl nl c l rme w rl k l nd e\ eeur es s |t c i l i c o ttl e tt.l " rtl ttrrl r N n dN .t!!r' (P S : .160r: thcsc

ro me.cly t_!clionalintcrcsls, whilc thc appear represent nftr\ thcrelbre suspccr everyoncofplotting agrinsrthcm.Oul ofthe t!l.r* ihcmselves L, ol dc.th thll thc fcror bnngs. indiliduals eventuallycome to sell:conception. which they now accept in lnnr wilh a lcssonc-sided l.t lhc slltr may requirethem ro occupyspeci6croleswilh it: 'Thcsc |dividuals who hale fell the liar of dcarh.of thei. rbsolutc masler. aaain suhmit lo neSalion and dininclncss, anangc thcmselles in * vurk)ussphcrcs.and .clum 10 nn {poaioned and lmiled lask. Hegel bl thcrcbyl o Ihe; subshnl i alrcalily ( PS: 16l) However . l hrt {hr\ r(j ' 4rr.on ol ' l ' ( \ \ r al . r der r ' n. I ncr c r . r , r a, I i' l d\ of lir.l wcnt bcli,re: li)r now the consciousress frccdom lhrl under R thc Frcnch c\ol uti or r.kcs a ncw f om . in r hc, r , / d/ Spir il' tanncd

lt8 !6.t).

'fhus. rs llyttolilc puls ir. Ilegel rnlerprers lhe Tetror in the l n3ul ' S c of hi s di rl ccti cl l phrl osophy( llyppoljr e 1974], l5lt ) . t br {hich and hlghly $gniricinr problenr. ll'cl, thc lcnor posesu <lcep I dul oncc lhe Ino(lcm rndividual hrs discovcrcdlhrl hc hns lhis g' !c hi nrscl luri \crs!l ir y, r hr l is. l( ) cxr inguish panicuall t!* cr rd bl y. $l l dcl $mi nacy (P R \52 . t . lli) . how can lhi\ be pr elent ed iom makrng rhc indilidull fccl rlicnuled ltom all thc nructurcs It nrtc ut l hc sl al crnd $crcr y ( ils $c'al r cles.ils. onslilnli( ) n. l ils i ons.i ts rcpfc\cntl tr!cnrech. nisnr s, d. cison nr r kr ngp( t s l nt l l cgcl s drs.ussi dr lhc licnch R$oluli( nrr hoss. hc of rdurc\)' A s |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' reenrs hx\c i l s !trrcc nol I n t t ( usser uir t qr llns ahoutt h. 1,, l rn ol i n(rcrgfl !. hur i ,t rh( ut $illit gncssor nr d$n ir di\ nluNls Li (cr Ir nl .trtl l y thcr\cl \c\ $rr]r nft pxr lr . r hr . onnilucr cy. \ r hich is \tnr.rr r f r xr c t {) h. \ c lhcr rt . of cr consr r i qntr((l rl rctre\.i ,rrl rtnrrl srrn,l i 0r.r ( )n rhcorhcrhr f i. he sccslhnrpr cvur s wr ys ol :n.xrl lonf $ lppl'. ' thc rndi \r(l urL,) thcrr\ , cr r l f osilionur c l rr{rrhr! 'b s. thc scl l hrs re.,,!ri l e( l , r \ $nr 'c, l! ibr r cf l. '. t r \ e pr r r lidr l o, ' trr.c l hc $l l qur frni eul .r rnt l lhr scll qu. unscr sr l.I l. gcl nccds hi t{ n lo l .bo$ ho\ l l c r.nel ri \. ri rrl c| r subr cct . u bc r cconcilcd - pr nr chy sh^\rn! h({! rr rh . nr xlcr n $or ld. lhcsc r olcs ! r ( l | | i t). n(,1 hl l utrrN trecd .o,rtr(rrr\. t hc $r bt cclr n( r ng ser \ e ol uni! . r rn,l equi Il \ l l c!(l \cr\.r r r o. er lr / c lhls t n, i. . l r t lhe thr 167

TH E O A LE C TIC

OF 5P R IT

I'hilt)r)drr ol Risht. \<t whrch rhis discussionin the Ph.raDtoalos.r is dergned to lerd u\. !1a Hegel s l-unhc.analyis ol the caregories ol ! ni! c r s . l. p. nic u l a r. d In d i !rd u ailn th e1 -.{ r,. H c ri nrsl o showthrt rn c ns l( r ns . hws , r n d $ c i d l i n n i tu l i o n s rc n o t s i mpl yconnrri nts. a but Nrccn!hlnrg condilxlnsior humrn liccdom. bccruscthcv both p(,!idc ncccs$ry rcsourccs humrn de\clopment,rnd enablcus to idcnlil-\ lbr and obkin lanou\ cnds ind gonls wc can sel ourtelvcs.(For lirrthcr discllssnDol ho$ rhrs protecrrs mcant to $otl ln tl\. PhiL'u)t r ol R, . qr l. . c Hr r drn rD l 9 t).1 l:.1 l 7 l rn d K . R . $ e srphN l 99l b i s

The postulates ot Kantian moality Ilegcl lbcuscson thc se.icsol In (tr,lLrro bnnS oul lhis Incohercncc. |,rn'Ll{,r lo bc lbund in the Krntrrn eonceptionol pracrcal .eason. rh(r. Kxnl tricd k) show thrt thc mnl agcnl nusl ha\c cenaln hopes ah{n th. .lli.Ncy of his cndcrvours.rnd lhrl to mrkc thcsc hopcs Irlr ul. hc uusl conrnrithi'ns.lflo lhc following propositions:'l hcrc ol incom h r (nxi .l hcrei s rn rhenal ur!. t hc*or ld ! n or iginal, lt houSh Nnd Fchcn\rhlc disposilrcnlbr agft'enent slrh n$ral purposiv.ncss, licrc rs tinllly rn lhc hunlun soul r dlsposil(tr rhirr Inakesrl c.pdhlc ol l| nclcr cndirg l,()grcss tu lhis monl purposilcnc\s (Klnl RP 20: bce!usc srlhoul lhenr {c l{X,) Krnt s.cs N n.cd Lr lhcsc postulNles rorl d ha\c no gounds l i )r l h ink; r 8 t hxt our m m l r clions wr ll ir rl((..d.ls norhrnts drc nrtur.l sorld lrkcn on ils ()sn givcs us rny | tr$n l o l hrnl th!l !l nuous bc h. ! iouf wlll br ing xhout h! t p'ncss, goodncss scem s nr r ) ssihlc lhis lilc. r in rhrl c l hc rehi cl cnrcnl nrofl rl ol lot h.onrcs eone(ilrblc il lhe soul is rh)ught ol as imm)dal Klnt unpio\ uble. us pnr posit r ons hul l rl di thcs.fostuhl csds l hcorcticr lly are tlut $c Nrn .ndorsc ifortr Drtr!l undcrtrkrngs lo nr!ke riy nruc, l rnl \cosc (l i tr l unhcr d' s.nssrnrscc \ {ood l9llJ ) N o$. K unl \ docl ri nc h. ponulr t cs s dr r $n lir c lionr Dr any ofl hr Ns l n S crcrl l . crxi c: h.!. s. cr lhc l) ost uhlcs lr consr slcnl {t{nc^. t hc rrth rhc resr rhc K rnl ,a,rl i r ({( t r t . undr lt r r s. sconlnlnnr sr nS ol r Inkt.rl \ ol hi s l i rndrnrcnl rl To \ ot r t e. henr xininconsr slcn. r fosi ( r ( n. tr * nh * hrl thcy s.. rs thc rnt r nr clr phy$cr lpos, l( r i ol lhc Fr r sr L,n/,r - .l i i ni i n! thrt \xnt nos t r icsk, {i\ c nr nc kind ol r aliu l at,t!rt l i n bcl relrr thf.\r\tcnr. ol ( iod 0r l I h. soul.qhcr c hc hr d ,r lell FL ,n,\l \ n,c(cc(tc(t nr{ ri n! m ch h. licli t ( )hr unnr f lr onr hlc Xr l l .trr l ,)S l ,:l l (). -A \ rh. rcnrl l ol r hr sr r ! unr Lan- nl dr slr r gur shcs frf $((r rhe//r-,./i // r,, t \ t, t trtl llc t r & hll kt \,,. rtrd hr" Drcrns ol rh( l ,l tl .r,xs $i rh. n grcrr n\ $r nd. h. r er r $lics ( lcr r n. $h1. h tl ro' .r(rl r.rson h.d | | l l c{ l ..1 r li, Nr ct / sehe 197. 1:. ] . 15. 16. 1) \ t rh. Inronsrsl .nr\ rrtr( u. . 1 by t hcposluht cs \ r lh Kxr r ls is 1,, ' {If!\. li) xi .l hr{l rhcorr' . (t rr trfl r.ul 0 $ it h hr sr nr i eudr cnn, nism r .hr \ I n8 !i rro( I' on i hnt t Lncss, nl is non. lhclcss K. sxid .l w t' l r (i r\rIrB U ,shc(l or r' r' { nr,r.rsc hrsporl i on $,l h r hc r ( leir r hr llgh. st ( nr ) d. whcr c rrr!!{ s,r.rrnr{ hnnS rhr' ur hrpn, ne\ :ir r r r a\ r hxt will onl! s. . n]
169

Spirit That lr CertainOf ltselt: Morality

A r lhc h$n or ' ll e g c l s rfu l \s i \ o r' th c F rl i c h R c !ol !ri d' . rs $e hr!c s . c t r .r s r . f li{ t ur o l l h . (n .' i rl c (h .s !n rh ..o n.cpl nnrol l i rerl odl i t c f r hodr . d. hic h rc q rrrc d . $ rb tc .l r{ ) .\ti f!urnr rl l pxnr.ul rnl y' { rh ( r l1 d. lc nninr lc d .s i r.s . tr.i l s . rn d s ).i rl n t.s ) i n ord.r l (J N .hr.!. ' unr \ c hr lir ) ; t h i s u n i \e h rL l i c c d o n r' .l l c g e l rrgucd. c!n frcduc. nc , r hc r Ns jli\ e { o rk n o r I d c c d (l ' s : .l 5 r)).l e gel r(N l ri csl o sho* l hos r r Nilar d' ,j -s i (l c (l i rs 1 ,.: h c h ,i (l rh c e rh ,erl\r\l .nrs ol K rl : rnd |i.hl.. whR on rh.rr r..ouDt ol licL'doDr. rulononFus mnl thc s ubic c who r c t s o u l o fd L rr! rs s .t .frr i i o n r l h c n.l utul subi .clN ho l r c ls out of dc s irc s n d In e l i n a l i o n h : ..g u c so n .c rgN rn l sc thrt l hi s scl s up r n ar lr r hc s rs e l { c e nl h c rn d r} i d u a.n d c o n crel acl i (nNsu.h rhrr b c . lhe \ uhic c rr s lel l l c c l ,r8 rh rl i r n rl h l b e b e \l l i orn r nrml fehfec lr ! c r Jhc gr \ . t r nl r!i n g tr, (l o rn \,rh i r' !.x s l h $ . 1s l i c err (| ) ' l hi ng r ) r . l! . lil. t r ! rc d u rr_(l l c !c l l i rn i o i s l \ :r$ r cl (,sr rel rl i i rr herc bc t u. c n f hr lon J d r\ In (i c m.n l rr,l to l rL .xl dcnts i r I.rrtr.c. oh\ c r \ r ngol lh. (l e r t' l l h c fu r( \i l l l h .rl N i rh l hc (i .nnrrs. l rtl r enr . r f c r llr r n! u Ll l r(L r\: rL rll l i (l re i i (h \L \h .(1 1,,Iur rl Inl () trrel r.c' ( l, ll: . 1. 1. 1, I , \l\:l ) ) l l e g e l r,,n \ r() \l ,o \ h (\ r rhrs conecttron l ol l ic . r lor r inr l r u rl ro o d f.s s c ,n l D i rs Ih f K , trn,i $ l i ) | (hrrl rsl r( s b t ' . lLr f . . t r hi. h , ir\| | ,rg o i :h rsl ' r| .| rL \.r$ f.f rh . nrl rH l i nd l l ' r Inorrl or lc r . n. inr lk n rx r(l (It\.,rrrl h rf| ri n .s srf(t n rnl Lrt. In x $rt trl nr ullr f lelr lc r d\ r. ri ,(,)h c re n (e

r68

'J

TH E DI A T ' CT I < O f ' P IR

IH E

O IA L E C l IC

OF ' P IA IT

attainablc (according 10 Kanl) if we inlroducc the posrulateof a who can Sovemrulurc lo bring this about suprcmcsndhnevolentCod (cf. Schopnhaucr 1965:Sl. p.49, 'Kant had ihe grealmeril ofhaving purged ethics of all eu.laeno . . . IBull Of cours. strictly 'n spcaking. evcn Kanl has banished eudaemonism from cihics mo.e in appeanncclhan rcal'ty. for h. slrll leavesa mystenousconnection 'n in berwecnvinue and suprcmehappiness his doctrineof the hishesl good, where lhcy come logetherin an abstrus{.nd obscurchapter; whcrcasvinuc is obviouslyquite forcign to happincss. ). Though thcy hale a certain rheloricrl lbrcc, lhcsecriticisms ol Kanl s posilion can be met by the Kanlian. (;ivcn Kant s dislinction betwccn rhcorclicaland practicalreason.n is not clcrr lhal there is lbr lny inconsisl.ncyin rqccling lheorelicalargumLnts (iod and the soul, bul deltndin8 prdclrcalargumenisland lhcre !s no rcrson lo lccusc Klni of bad fuilh on this scorc.And il xl$ sccmsincorecl lo hold lhar lhe d(rtnnc of the Highcn Cdxl is in lcnsion with Kanl s lbr a ann-cudacmonism: ahhouahKant here makcshapprness Soalof lhe morul rgcnt, n is not rtr happiness thal molivltcs hrm. $ Kant lbr vrnuc des not In any wry lrcat happinss thc aScnts /.iuil as 0uy t r 2( X X r:,l l 5 ). l {ct Now. allhoughtlegel s crilique ofthc ponulotcsis often n!vmobiections. shen kx,ked.rlmorc closelyrhis ilaredwilh thcscstandard cririquc is of .j r rhcr diffcrenl kind: put simply. his ('bjocrionis ihar thc lundrmcnhl dualismof Kanl s posilron nrcirnslhal Kant can do no morc thrn ponulalc lhe coincidence ofnalurc nd nrc.ality. inclinrrion rnd duty. lnd happinessand !nor!l;ly. bul making lhe connecrionin lhrs \c^ weak way lcalcs lh( (lullrin unrcsolvd. so rhat thc subjccrrt lclt ltelrtrSlhal dny nclron rr pcrli)nns rs wonhless ll.gel. tlcrclirc- lhe drlli' tiom a nxn.rl ponrr or \eq. Accordrn811, rulty with thc K.ntrJn liamework is rhatlt 6 oblUcd to scc thc Hrghest (nx lnd nNnl pcrt-ccrron somerhrng rhar w. em do no more than !s /'d/L liir, as sonrcthrng lhal dlgrt ro hc. bt..rsl lhc drvisions Kant scls up bclwecn th. nirturulsphercand thL nxtrxl rdcrc forcc him lo pdsrrthis rca|/alron rn th! beyond ll.Bcl s ohrcclionlo lhe postularcs thcrc,irrct.rkcsthc lbm of a so-eall.d ,,//."L*ririii thal is. he (jcels thcni bcclusc lhly rcly on a l-Lrnd,rnre (Istinclion betwecn ol h ow t hingsr r c l n d h o w th i n g so u g h l 1 r)b c . ro * hl ch l hk oughl ' 170

{.')/(r) is introducedro overcomea dualism rhar is presupposed ar thc outscl.and so cannor b sei aside.Hcgel surnrnanzes objecrhis tion qu;rc cfearfy in the aetlret o, th. Hiiton of Philoephv, lFbr Kanll Will has the wholc world, the whole ofrhe snsuous. In opposilionto it, add ycr Rea$n insistson the uity of Narure or the moml law, as thc ldca ofthe coul, nhich is lhe uhimare cnd ofthe world. Since.howcvcr.it is formal, and rhcrcforchas no conrent rts own account. srands on rr opposrdto rhe impulscs and inclinarionsof a subjcctile and an erlemal independnr Nalurc. Kant rcconcilesthe contradictionof the rwo . . . in thc thoughlof thc highcsl (jood, in which Nature is confomed 1() w mri onal i l l , and huppi ncsso linuc . . . [ But ] The unif icalion r sJroken itself thereforc rcmains only a Ecyond, a rhoughl. of $hich is nor actually in eJ(istcncc. only oughl ro b. . . . [Thc bur postulate of(;odl. like lhal ofthe immonalny ofthe soul,allows lhe contrudicrion rcmain.r\ it is lll rhe r;me. and exprcsses to only anihe abstractthrt thc rcconcilinrion ouShrro come abour. Thc pollulnte ilsclf is always rhcrc. bccausc rhe Cood is a Beyondwith resFcr kr Nlrure: rhc la$ ofneccssity and rhc hw of liben) are diferent from onc lnothcr. nnd phccd in rhis dualism.Nature would rem.rin Nalu.c no bnger. if it wcrc k) becomccontb.mcd ro thc Noti(u ol llt'(iood: and thrls rhcrc rcnr!insrn urtcr oppositionbctwccnrhc lwo sidcs.becausc rhry eunnor unilc II is likcwisc ricccssirry cnrblish thc uniry ofthe 1() l soi bul thi s i s ncl cr l cl u! 1. lbr lhcir scpur r lion exr cr lywh l is fr(',rupposcd. 'r {l I I P: lll. pp. 16l l) l l cS cl thushdsr$o l rmr rn crnr( i/ r ngKlnr 's posluhlcs lir st .hc r ncs io shos th.r K.nt s dunljslrcprctLrrc nraDs hc cnn do no morc rhan xtll th. llShcst (;md rnd mornl p.rli.ti(n as toals se can stnve for. and sccondhc tri.s lo show rhlr lheni is $merhrnq incoherent this In podnr()nsrth rcspcct n) mdr!l aetron. so thar rhc Kanrian should atrr on thc dualismthnr hls lcd him lo it. h\ rhc Ph.,nnwnologt. llegcl scts o t Kant s postularcs thc in .ubsrcoon cnljiled The Moral Vicw ol thc World. llcgcl fi61 dis, cui$.s rh! postul.rcthai rhcrc is in th. n.rurc ol rhc r|orld nn onginrl 171

TH'

OIALECIIC

O' ' P IRII

IH T

D IA ITC TIC

Of

IP IR II

though incompr.hcnsihlc dislx)silionlor aSrcemenl with mool purpowhile sivencs:that is. th assunpton rhar g(el d.{ds w'll succeed. bad ones will lail. The nccd for this poslulatcanses. becauserhe by moralisrdivides naturc oil from thc morrl consciousness. lakin! while the moal the naturalorder lo hc gdlcmcd by c.rusalnecessity. order is govcrncd by rhc impcmlivcs of duty 'Thc objcct has thus b e c om c . . i & lr d ,w h o s c h w s l i te i rs i c ti o n sbcl ongto i tsel fnsr bcing which is indillcrunl lo nr()rnl scll:conscn)usncss.Jusllhc la(er as i s indif f c r c nt ) (PS :3 6 5 ) (h l h c o l h c r h a n d rh cmoralagenlD ust 1( il . l rle his duliesas $ n re th rn g e e rn l c ru rl l y t,(,/o , , i n i he $orl d. .nd h so musi s!'c nriurc irs hosplrlhlc ro hunranh.ppin.ss !s a 8o.1. Th's need ro o\.r.om. th( iririrl durlsnr is whll 8i!.s risc io rhc posru lrtc I hc hlnnony ol n!)r!lil] rnd Nnturc or. sincc Nalure comcs inlo nccounlonlr- nr s, l-Ir rs consL(nrsncss c\p(ncnccs rls unily $irh rt lhc hxnron) ol r|]()rnllt xnd hrppincss.is trdrarl,y'rs $merh'nr rh r ncc.\\ndfy t\- tc i t\ tr\ntlnr\l (8S 167l The nNal worldtietr rh..cin.c d^orccs nrorillv liotrr ml re !t one le\el. bul lrresl(J morrl;z. rt rr rnothcr rclxtcddurl{n un(i.ri.\ thc rceondpoftlrtc. ofrnrmonahrr ll.rc. ^ the p()hlen r\ rhrr on tlc onc hrnd thc Krntran secr nl(, l su bleel\r : po$t \ \n rg r ' p u rr w rl l $ h tc h d rrc cl sl hcm | o l i )l kN also lh. idtul ltls. rhrlrll or th. i'rhcr hrnd rhct fc nonedtelcss n d r ur lbc r t r gr $ho rrc rl l .(l e rl h ! $ u t\ rn d s .r{ k,trstr!)tr!.s (K rnl ( P r R, 5: p. ll) . w h i (h q rN n .tu rx l h .i n l s rh .l .rnnot o!..conr.i rh . ] - t hc r c lincI r ll { h n o l rh c to rc th o u !fi Io fd ury (P S rl 6i l ) thrl h N s no { r . h r lll. l i o r l h u s . $ h l c rh c frn l $ orl d\i cs rcqu res l h r t r s nnnr l r S c f r\ s r \h o u l (lrc t o n th i sfu rc { rl l rnd !' l asr(l r' l nrr n rr u l h. i, ' ! . ( ntrl i f ,' rh d h n r(l rs , l u ftl s u h t.!l ' r kccenr\se.i tnor ,tt.l l ,rg n r' l !l g ,u t,i .s unrchrc!l bl . 1r d o n, . r hc r c h\ x t,t)x re rrh l h $. li) r . r t l. Nf ls k , o \.re o n r.l h rsr.n s ro rh ! In rn nfurrngl hc l rosl ul N l . {n prccess ' o fr nnDon. r |1\$ h ri h i l k N \ l i ,r l h c l ro s s rh i l rt\ .rn.rrdl css . ol rc ll r nf nt r c nr c n l { ' rr n o t!(rD t c rl $ c rc ..fl l h . l sc crnD d rehrc!e . rc \uc hS oo( ln. \ s t ).l tr l h (l \x n l rx n . l l l h rs r!]rl \ r\l rkrsrscr/,,v!/,rr.,/ l .,r { . , r , ' Do'r . r u rl l \ ,h r' : tn ! N h r' i . rh e rc,' c (n' \eousne\s. dtc or i n r , r h. \ , \ ol \ en\ u .u { rc \\ i l ' x l n u rce { tN c rn ^ n .* l P S l 6tl ) lr nilll. llr g .l .(rF trl .A rh c rh ri (! l )o \ru hr.. ol (i od. l l cr. l l . gr l ' dr \ . t r { ! 6n r. tr!tr{ r$ rn L In n r Krn l \ o \ n d.n\i ron otth. 112

lh.nrn IntcryrcF{olnl(, rnd rs closcr to a rutionalrcconsrructrotr (.ntral ro llcScl s accountasn drslincli(n h. dnrws bcl$c(n .|xr 'F|.! dr"y lnd sFcilic dury' He docs nor cxplarn rhi\ r,inflinol(i8y ltr) (lclrl'. hur one $ay of undershndinE is as lbllo$s. As a m)ral ir Grrx'L|tn.ss, the indrvidual linds rhdl hc musr irrr in pdnicular dFomstnn.cs, where what is risht for hi,n to do is dcrcmincd by his ?..rli( duiics (for cxrmplc. his obligallonsk, his tanrily dcpcndanrs, hrs Ircnds. or his counrrymen). tkrwclcr. rhough thc nr(nl sncssmry 3..ept that these spccill. dutrcs nrrkc u ccnrin rn$x l sr* ol rctN n ri ghl l br hrm in his pldicular silualion. m r y lccl hc Ll l h$.oursc ol rcrroni s sl i ll not his pur eduly . whcr c pLr r c y' dLI I ||ndc^nrxl rs qhxl it would be nght li'r hinr l(t do il hc scrc lrcr athir spccrlie duli{s (lilr examtle. his speciliedurir'\ nrllc rr nShrrhit L.houkl pro!i d. tnr hi s tbmi ly.*hr lc hi! pur L'dut \ kJgr ! . r Sr cr t cr i\ F'xtnrnr ol ha nreotrrek, 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 ?0l y l o rt h\ rrnr.' ol b!' rngI n lhr t silur t r nr Al r bc \ r Dr clr nr c.r hc fitr||l cons(rusrcs\ \cc\ rhat thit siturti,!r rs onc ro \hrch ir bclong\. .trl {, r..tl \ (hrt ,r rsnotl i !. t odor N pur er lLr l} r kD. Ar lt cgcl Ihc nrnl (on\el uness ls I h. \ , , , r , / , ( , , / nr r ! r nd r , / / , , q , 't ' r Itrre dor.' \ In rhc rl oi n ! ol r r . bnt r r ght r llr r . I r nr r $ h lhc ohtcclrh,(h \rrnds In r o. t r ir srr , ) ir \ ! nr f licr t ! . I nt 0 r ekr r on * rl h thc r(rurl rt) ol rlr e e( nnt le\ . r sc, r nd r hcf ehyh. r s x (onrtl c\ nrrrl l rl i rk,^h t t ) *) \ h it t l. r . r r : c. r n r . I t r ( r , ] fonl enl .l h.,rur l .N \ S. t r cr r llf ,r nd I r r clr l! ! r t ( ' I inD. 1hc contfudrel or! N crs ol thc loo$r ng eor N( kr u{r ! : s l ot lhc $( |{ In tl k l i A t th.c- !\ r cSr Rl\ , u, r d! r ie\ .r h. ! nlcon lhe \cknN nc\s' n hccd\ onl! t llc, r ) r / . , / r / r , t rr hr Dr r hcu$y : 8tncful dutr$ trd tr'rn,li,kl rre Vr1rtu iod rhcrclnrc x! tu.h h$c tuihrn! snercd xbout th.nr lir. rhc nrml .on{ou$csr Ar l hc \n r( l rnrc.hou.\.r. b. n'! , r ( r \ ! r 1. {n. ! t h. Noliut ol ' d.rn!- In' fI.\ x ronrtlc\ r er r xlr t \ r nd r hr kr ar c a cdt r r t lc\ 173

TH E O I A L ' C T I C

OT ' PIRII

TH

D IA IE C TI(

OT ' P IR II

moml r.lalion to ir, thesemany dutiesmusl b reSarded p(\ as sssin8 rotrinsicbing oflhir oen. an (P S :369 7ol Now, lhis is obviouslyan uncomfonablcsnuationfor rhe moml a8$r lo b. in: on fic one hand. as a panicular individual, he sesrhar h. h.s specificdulies(e.9.to hisdepndanrs friends),bur on rhe orhri and hand,fmm a moreuniveEal srandpoint. s.s that it would b h! cr h. if he wcre free to do his pure duty (e.8.give morc mony lo chrnr! | The problem here is this: how can thc morll world,view ground rh( obligaloriness spcificdutics. when ihcy appcarro go aSainn rlf of comf,clinSdcmandsof pure dutyl tlcrc. Ilcgel claims, rhe motuli\r inlroduccs(iod, who sanclifies'thesc spccificdutics,by so a.mnSrng lhe world lhrl they arc just as elfcctivc rt bringing abourrhe good x' Thus it ir pixrulaled rhat ir is drdrr.r cons{iousness shreh makclllhem [i.e- the spcificdutierl srcred.or which knows!n(l wills lhem s dulies.The lir$ holds ro purc dury. indiffcrcnr t(, all vra!& content.and duty is only this Indifference row.kl. suchconlent.The olher. however.contains cqually essenrrrl rhe rclaoon to doina , and to rhe necessiyoflhe rp..tli,i contcor sincc lbr lhis othcr. duties mc,in Vr! i/i. durics.the conrenlr\ such is cqually essenlial thc lbm which tnakesthe conlcnt r as duly . l h i s c o n s c i o u s n eis s o n s e q u cnrl y i n tl hi ch uni v$srl sc onc and pd.ticularare simply one. ahd its Noti('n is. rhcreforc.rh. srnrc rs the Nolion of the h rmony ol motulity and happinc\\ . Ihis rs thcDhcncetbnha mastcrlnd rulLr ol the rlorld, NhL, bring\ rlxut thc hamhny of nr(ml'tv rnd hrtp,ne\s. and !r rh. srnrc rrmc srncrrlies dutics in thLr muhiplcrry. (P S :l rrrr ( ) nc c n hasl x )s ru l l l e d o d In l h rs w n y .l h c mrrl con$i ousness.r,l (i lccl libcrltcd lrom ille demandsol purc dur!. !i rrs role c.n hf conlined kr thc obse^ance of spccitic dutics: Ihty in gcneralthu. hlls outsidc of rr inro ano$er being. which rs loDscrousness lhe and s lc . c d llwg i v e ro l p u rcd u ty { P S: 3 7 1 } . l hi s rhcnl cadsthe K rnri rf kr h !c rn cquivocrl position on thc issuc ol thc rclation bct*c.ri 174

lry|ncss and virtuei on the one hand. the moral consciousncss rl has nol pdbrrned its pur duty, and so feels unwonhy and lnrri I.d.*rving ofhappiness;on the other hand,il blievesthal God will ! th.t this failur is nol its fault. as it has done what is rigll in lhe .|Ctrutances. and so may erpct forgiveness and hence some of well-bing (PS: l7l). Irlln Thus. without followinS Kant's own disussion, Hesl has out the three centlal ltatures ol K$nl's moral ffgumnt for hqht lrats the moral law as Ood. namely thar the moral consciousness Inmlndcd by God (God sancliliesthe specilic duties);thal rr sees Ood rs hclping us 1o bring aboul lhr cxislcnccol a good world (Cod ofthe O ursngrs thingsrhal our spccilicdutics lcad to the realization (nDd): aDd thar it relies on Ood's wisdorn to arsuc lor a Hlihc$ ( !i Gmcctron bctw een nue and happin. sscll KantCPr R, 5:p. lll n. . rhusthc holy law8ivcr lond cr.!tof). lhe beneficnl rulcr (and 'loodl is dnd thc Jusl jud8c. ). Lt incr). lleStl tlen tums ro a dclarlcrlcnriquc ofthc moral qorldi iew, or lh. srct|onenlrled Dissrmblancc I)uplicity': pdssinSjudscmcnl h q! (!nt in a tray lhai Kanl hiDrscllhad prsscdjudgcmenlon olhcrs. is . . r "rhole ncsf of l* dcclarcsthrt lrlhc nkml sorldiie* conlrrLlicrions (PS: 371) Irr punreular.hc tnes k) shos llbuShrlcss thc out in flcl wc arc in i slron8crposrli(nrlhrn Drfrcly possi'srrng 'hopcs lhc Klnlian put\ li'nlinl. hot lh,rl Krnl s lirmcworl nakcs il llcgcl suSgcns. is l mF$si bl cfi n hi nrl ,) rcl fuN l c dS. lhis. lh. r csull. lhd thc Kanlianmrxhsl hus r \i(s oi ornlilv thrt is dilorc.d iion) rhc ncrdl-oriionircr.'r. rion. !' thrr llilic rfi( (r! rdontcd by lhc French di{usscd in lhc nr$ioLr\ \eelllrr} thrs outlook can rsvoluriurarii'.s nci thcr posi ti \. t\or t nor I dceJ' r thxl ueL thc Tius, xs rcgirds lhc lirsr Jrostularc. Krnr'ln trcar\ 'thc h.r r,?/Ll, hrmonv. nol cxplicrixrnyol nt(tralilr lnd Narure [.tsl.n not prcscnt: on lhc conlrury. whal rs dly tor acrunl tr!i{.nr rsralheronlr.lhc conl.r.licli(inollfi.lwo {PS:175).Bul.llcgcl rrtucs. wc condo morc th{niusr tortrldft rheharmonyofmoraljiy and n|turc:in lilct. cvc.y l imc wc ucrnx)r lly rr lhc world. wecan seenalure l conl omri ngo our si l l i nd rhu sshosor gilsclf t o be in ham ony wit ll ls mofllily. nol as merepostulalcbLrt ! rc,]lily: Aclion. lhcrcfo.c, in lbct drr.elly llllils wh,|l sar Lrsscned eould nol take place.whnt wls 175

THE DIALECTIC

O' ' PIRIT

IH E

OIA LE C TIC

OF ' P I3IT

supposed b mercly a posrulare. 10 merely a byond.Consciousness rhus proclaimslhrough irs deed rhd ir is nor in eamsrin mating rl, postul.l.because meaninS th ofthe acrionis rcally lhjs,lo makeinto a prcsnt rcalrty whar was not supposd ro .risl in lhe pres , (PS 375). Hegelthenconsiders Kanrianrcsponss. ftough I lnay fin(l a rhar n possiblclo realize panicularmoml goods. lhis dosnor showtharrhc ultimatc moml goal ofrh HiShesrCood is realizabte naturc.Bur. in Hegl arSues. this Kantirn rcsponse revalin8.for ii showsthar l-or is lhe Kanlian.qhar makesthe HiShestcood unrcalizahle not so much as naturc.!s thar ir rakesmore rhan rhe limilcd effons of individualsn) bring it ahour;but ifrlr is so. lhcn it is not clearrlhy we shouldbothcr aclinBmorally ar all, andjust rcly insread thr hoperhat rhe Highcsl on Cood will mystcriously comeaboutby irse[: Con*-rousncss srarts trom rhe idc rhal. /d. n. momtity and rcdlrty do nor hamonize: bul ir is nor In eamestaboul lhis, for rn th. dccdthe presence this hnrmon) brcomes.Vrr..r./,f ir ol Bul is nor In eame$ cvcn rbout lhc dcd,sinccrhedeedis emclhing indiridua| for ir hassuchr hi8h prlqtos!.rhe fusr.ar a.'/ Ilut this a8rin is only ! disscmbtancc rhc facts. for su.h of drsscmblancc would do d\r!y wirh ll actronlnd a moratiry.In , hs $mds. cojjslgu:!!)'l: uobrru!1rNkms. gjggl$r q' ! hrx ,,,d a { ro n : s h fl rr r(rl l } h o U. ri , hJ m,hr Jc,i r;htc.n, bc the Absolure.is lhar the highcsrBood bc accomptjshed. and th t motul aclion be $rpeduous (P S r177) ln $\cnec. rhcn,ll.gel s objcclioDto thc ltrst IiNutrrc is,lujte simplc. lh('Klnrran rruns tionr a basi( duatrsmot motulrr\ and narure.and rhrshlinds hinr lo rhc t.cr rhrl enou8hot our nr(mt !o.ts nre achicrrd k, m*c coDrnuedmo.!l arrion rari()nr| bur oncc rhrsfrcr is ndnri(ed. wc ar(, no lonScrobhgcd to rear thc'lSrccmcnl k)t thc lorldl wilh mor.rl prlrpos'rcncs\'as a mere poslulnte.in ihc $a! rhar Kani irics k! do. Thc KrntirD moralistcrnnor sce rh!s.howcvcr. wirh the resull (llcScl cl ims) thrl he faalsto be in cnmcsl shcn it comes ro lhe v!lL'c ol moral action. As rcgardsthc sccondpostularc. ltcSct posesr dilemma for the Kanlian. ()n lhe one hand. hc argucs,lhc Kantian cannot lrear lhc 176

pure will as one wirh ,, desiresand inclinalions.because sJly aa..*r!. ir would be impossiblro e,(plarnirs capacity for action. C th. o.hcr hand, lh Kantian could s.e the momlly purc will ar desiros and inclinarions, but rh^r rhe! arc ia .orfornit!' t:'i.in8 t|) $. dicrat.s ofnomliryt but lhn. if rhe Kantian is right io iake subjccl as phenomenal and thc morsl subjecr as nournenal. lt||tursl rhould we think thar rhis conformity should eler aris. as lhe Ity allbrtnt rcalms have different structuresl Thus. while the second seems hold oul somehopof overcomingth dualismof lo F|llilc inclinaiioD an infinite bcyond,Kanl s actualpositionwould in hopcto be misSuidedi 'thc hamony lofmorllity and senscllo* luch -y.nd is beyond consciousncss r ncbulous remoteness whcre in nlfll or dting can any more be accuratclydistinguished comprehendcdi I our altemptsjustnow ro comprchcndthrs uniry failed (PS: 3713). taoo. llcgcl arSucs.this resull will not r.rlly bothcr thc Kantian. lcrurc in facl he seesmoklity.s consistin8injusl this neveFending aqslc berweendury and inclinatron.us wiihout rhis si.ugSle thc lh|ous rndiladualcoulti nor shos rhar hc is capableof resislrngrhc rhrdli of tcmp|ltron: Nlornlity rs borh thc d.rilill of rhis FFiull o! it! puqhse.and !lso the conscnusncsr risrngiborc scnsc-natu.c. O(bcing mixcd uf, trilh scnsc{ tur. rnd slru881in8rglinst il. Thol dncnusncss is rol rn cirmcsrirhoorthc pcrrceli(Dol nrrally is indi' c.lcJ by rhc lircl lhrr consci(Nsn$snscll \hili\ 1rnwry ink, trrii^, tl is 1,..rN s.rl s rl t thc D crl ccl (nr nc\ cr p( r lcct cd ll'S: 378) . Ii ndl l y. i s ..8.rds th. thiRl post uhlc.I l. gcl r r iscst wo obicc' th. ||(rnr. l_trsl. ngarnsr rd$ rh.r (ntrl \rn.lilirs our spc.'li. dnricsxnd $r $ m.rkc\l hen ohhg.rk' t_1- cl ar gr esr hr t t hr { b inco'npar iblc t h l l cg th. .onnnrtn)enrt(' n('rnl rutur,ln\ Nh,eh r\ lurdamentrl ro lhc Xrnlrrn [r,$lron. lnd i(i K.nt \ In\i:lcn.r lirt sc shlllnot l(\rk uF)n ttlons !s ohli8it(iru bcc.u\. thcv rrc conrmrnds of cod. but shdll |t8!rd thcnr 0s d^rn. conn.Dds hc(rus'r wc h!!c rn in$.rd ohligal krn to them l K anr (P R : A sle'll8{7r Thus. t he Kanoancunnor bel$'een pure and sp(cillc {t|c8l lo Cod lo ovcrcomc thc rcnsr(Jn duticsl rhc mornl sell-conscrorslcrs. . . holds these,,a,l duries|o be otuissrnriali ir i\ corc.r cd only with the one pure duty. and lbr 111

lHr or a L E ar r a o r S PrrrT the m,y have no rruth /or r/ in so far as lh.y sre vr.if. duries. They can thcrcforhave their trurh only in anotherbeing and are mad ecrd - which rhey are rot for thc moral conscious' ness by a holy lawgivr. Aui this againis only a dissmblancc ofthe rcal position.lbr the moral self-consciousnss its own is Absolule,and duty is absolulelyonly what t lrowr as duty. Bur duly it knows only as purc dutyi what is not sacredfor ir is nol sacredir rtsell and whar is not in itselfsacred. cannotbe madc sacredby lhe holy ttein8. (P S :.l ti 0) lleSel s second objcclion concemslhe possihiliryofconceiv;n! (iod as a moral rgcnl. actins unde. an imperarivcof pure duly, whilc we cnrry out our specillcdulies. Hegel s claim is lhrlt such 'r purely moral being rsan unrcalabshcrion in which the conccptofmorality. which involvesihinking 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 spcilicathchmcntsand as existinS oursidethe wodd. as halins any moml a8ency wrrhin rt: God jLrsr apf'esrsto bc alto8erher bcyond rhe moral srtLr.rt|on. Thus. while thc Kani;an moralisl lhinks rhar we sre not capableol lully delelopd moral lgency because arc afecred by scnse-nature wc and Naturc opposcd it . ,l is nol clcrr lhal Cod is capablc lo ofm(trrl uScncy erlher. since the ru4lrrl of pure duty is ;ts rcult.utun n Narureand scnsci hut ( bd is a b o teth crr4 .i s /c o l N a ru re ndscns. (P S :l tl l ),and!i (, a out{ide rhr rcalmin whrch motul actio. tales placc.()ncd ngrin,lhcrc lbrc, lhgel clarms rhir rhr Kanoan h.s ! d!fii.trlrl in rcl.t,ng rhc r c all' of m o n l !c l i ()n$ i l h h i s (o n .e p r' o n l hc n,)rJl srl l . of

TH Dr Ar f Ct r c of sPr ir J cases. b.t moralrty.It takes itsclf to know how to acl in panacular do.s not fel any tension belween pw and spccific dutics. 'for ld f&r is lhat pure duty consistsin the empty abslractiooof pure I Ll|thl. snd hasits rcality and its contenronly in a spccificreality, in itselt and consciousI rrlrty *hich is the realily ofa consciousnss nol as a m.ru "thought-thing"but as an individual' (PS: 386 7): : feel its natuml self as a check lo such knowIt do.s conscience or moml adion. Likewise. n does nor worry about whetheror Itr becaus whar matrcrsto ir is rhar ld nrturc will frusrrateirs 8o.1ls. r.r il hasal leN ?ri{,./ acrwell:'What is donewnh the conviclo *$ ofduty is. rherelore.ar orcc somethingrhat h s standingand ! ll cristence.Thcrc is. ihen, no morc lalk of 8md inlentionscoming -n nothing.or ofrhe I Sood man faring badly (PSi lSli). Nonetheless. IlcSel Afguesthat the situation l-or conscicnceis !t as str.ightfoNard 0s;r clarms.and ir loo inlolvcs clemcntsof holds that il can derrnnine whar ttrcrnblance. For. firsl. conscince by dlhl in panicularconcrctcsituations lhinkinS lhbuSh the cotrrI ofrrs possiblercthnr: but ho* cnn ir clai to ha\'e a full Oficcs ldcrsllndin8 of whrl lhosc .onsquences might bc. givcn the wilh rhrl full acquatni,rnce torpliiry inlohedl: ir docs nor possess circunrshnc!.s {hich is rcquirrd, rnrl . its preicncc -tllharrtlendanl i ou\l w crshrng ll r lr ccir cum slanccs ! r ir ' ( lS: 390) . y is oa mnsci enl onl l l mi hrl y. consci cn.c y dL nicst hr l lhc r cr l sit r r li( in involvcsa dul ahl h ol nroral i eshceru\cr r t hr nk\r r eanr ely on it \ 'gur t celings' !r tcll il whar ir otrghl r(' rlo iirscicncc dctinrls this position by .ry{ing lhat depcndrngoI onc\ point ol-!rcs. rr r\ Jx'{\ahlcto see .lr N anllhing !s r Dulll) l(Silimrlc rclxnr. !, thrl onl! such gul fctlinSs cln re.ll) e(nnirm rhc cd: [( on\cicncc) plirccsin dury. as l hc l cmnty]uni \crs.li n-' rscl licss. conr cnrhr l il lxlcs lionrM lur al lhc r Indi!idullrtli lbr thc eonlcrl rs dne that 1sprcsentsuhrn itscll- (PS: will shdr e his l 9l ) l l osc\cr.l hc i ndi \i rl rrl cxnnotbc su. elhlr or hcr s noml and rhus clnrot be sure how hc will hc lud8ed by 'nluirions. th.m. (iDsciencc rhcr.li,rc islr lo bc judSc! mrlly on irs eonscicnlioulncssrlhqlis, lrhcthcr rr $us actirs coneclly by ils o!,r lghls: whether rhe nssururccof aetinSfrom a conlrction of duty is rnr4. wherherwhnr rs don. rs acruallya ./rrr rhdst questions or doubts ha\c nrcrDrns trhen addrcsscdlo conscience. 'ro 179

l]ronr lhrs criliquc ollhc nx)rrl consciousness, tlcScl nr.)vcslo a kind ol t lhi$l o u l l o o kl h rt h c c | l l s .,r!k ,rr.. w hrchs.ts out to cscap. lhc afbrias lhal hc!.r morulu, (ilnscicncc thus de.rs thc intemal dr!rsions which 8!tc risc to thc disse'nblancc m)rnlrryl, rhc di\ i k,f rk,n bctweenlhe in-rr{clf and lhe scli bct$ecn purc duty qua purc purrx,se. and rcaliry qua. Naru.c and snse oprx,scd pure purposckr (l)S: lli5) Conscrocc ihus has none oflhc (ler8ncd)sclldoubts ihar 178

THE D I A L E C I I C

O F 5 PIRIT

TH E Ol A IE C IIC

OT S P IR IT

To ask whetherthe assurance rrue would presuppose rhc is rhat inner intention is different l'.om lhe one put forlard. i.e. ihal what the ind;vidualself wills. can be separated from duty . . . Bul this distinctionbetween universalconsciousness ihe the and individual selfis just whar has bccn superseded, the suprand s es s r on u r{ c o n \c i e n c erh e s e l fs rm m edrare of . Ino$i ng rhar I is c er t r ino i i rs e l fi i l a w s n d d u ty . I| (P S :l 9G7) At first. the inwardness ofconscience brings grerr consolalion, as x appears thc agentrhathe can now makeit impossible orhers lo for nol lo recogn'ze his moral senius' (PS: 197),ashe can makc surerhat al the very lcaslthey acknowledge good inrcnlions:'The spint and his substance their association of arc this assurance their conscien, ol oousness, good iDtenrions. rejoicing o!er ftcir nroral purity. and the thc .efreshingof themselvrsin rhc glory of krowing md uftc.ing, of cherishingand fostering. suchan excellentstareofaffairs' (PS:198). Ilowcvcr. lhe individualcomesto seethat rhe bestway 1()sccurchis reputalionlirr integrity in ihe eyesof olhersis ro rcfrain from acrjng, as aclion mi8ht lead to a misintcrp.ctation his motrlesi thc moral of genius lhus brcon]es the 'bautiiul soul : Il lilcs in dread ol besmi.chinsthe splendouroi-ils inner bing by action and an cxis, tencei and. in ordc. lo presene the purily of its hcdrt. il flees tiom conlactwith the aclualworld, and persislsin its self-silled impotencc 1orenounce selfwhich is reduced rheextreme I u ltimateabstracils to o (Fo. a usel-ul lion lPS: .100). sludy thlt puts Hegel s drseussion ofthc b er ut if uls oul in i rs i n l c l l c c tu a l c o n re x r. eN o non 1995.) se t r J r J $ir h l l " c e m trrn (.. u frh c b (J u ti tJ l. oJr. -, Dc " r ! . Ltir e{ r : r rr. b u r rr,U l l \' c . r\' l r' .F n ),{Jl l ) J rth,ri rJr\f. -, lial lhcrc is rn incritableconllicl bclrvccnindi\idual consciousncsses. xnd bctseen indi!rdurls rnd rhc uDilcArl qua eslablished mo.al order: ' A s a r es uh, hc a n ti rh e s i sf i n d i !i d u a l i ty o th eri ndi vi dual s. ro r o ro and lhc unjveFal. comcson the scene. and sc h!!c to consider 'neritably lhs relarionship and its movemenl (PS: .100).As a resull. the indi !idual who acts iiom consciencc will look e!il to othen who abideby thc eslablished moral order. because refuscsto acr in accordMcc hc wilh lhc duiies lard do*n by that o.der: the rndividull will also be accuscdof hypocnsy, because clarms l(r bc interestedin acting he

nDrully while ar the sametime flouling the moral rules: In contmst b this intemrl determinationtof consciencclthere thus standsthc tbr .lctnenr ofexisrenceor universalconsciousness. which rhe essenlhl lcment is rdher universality,dutyi while individuality, on rhe olhcr hand.which in contrastto the universalis tbr itseltl countsonly momerl. For the consciousness which holds firnly !o ar ! supended counts as dril. because the disparity of duty. rhe first corsciousnes" bctweenits irr.r rcirA and the universaliand sincc.d lhe samctimc. lfiis lirst consciousness declaresits action to be in conformity wirh it hr.lf. lo be duly and conscienliousness. is held by rhe universal to consnrus.ess be l rTrxr r' (P S : : l0l) . In facl. ho$$er. liegel argues, thrre is litllc lo choosebelwcen ln thcse lwo fornrs oi consciousness. condemning lhe indilidual dut|l-ul majorily shotr lhemsclvcs be more interested to conscience.lhe othcrs than i n acl i ngthem sel! es. while t heiraccus. iion i n c.i ti ci zi ng _of hl po.ns* (n.,.)' J mun-ni nJ(J 'p r il. blint lt o lh( m or Jlint {Bnr ) ororaliml' iourhr' \,' n,ans ] hcro ro hi' \ rler. nor. ho$e\ cr. -,.9[ih-c rhe nranr. nor a heftr.but becruselhe lalel is a llllel (PS: tt cause 404).Thc morNlindi!idudlist thuscomcslo scc lhll its criti. hasmuch ' h common $irh rrsall and thal both are equally hlliblc: fi thereibre 'confesscs'lo thc othcr. cxpccling thc othcr l() rc.ipr({rlc. llowcvcr. rl firsl the olher doesnor dd so, rerDrinirg hr(l he rtcd : it thustn,// b.comcs a hcrutilirl nrl trkinS up a fosition ol dcrrngcd srncti monrousness {PS .106 l) W i th thi s r\rd.nl krl urc. thc 'hr kl hcr r t is Lr ccd lo r ccon ci l e i tsel l si th rh. nrtrrl i n(l i \r(l t[ lin- r ' cleh r . co8n, / cst he one( ri dcdncss i ts posi ti on. ol tnnl hcrcc o\ cr eor r c\r l I n t his insighl r nd l hc nrol e ti onr hu(l l .nfl cdD L:: ro r nr lr \ . ne\ r r l hnt r F\ ) .llelel sees l hcnttri nnrcnl -x I,R ,N rl l drrl c(l r( . 1 nlNr r l. . I nonr cnl bcing ol slr oltl d home thnlcon\l rl Lrr.s' r rcn| ,,r f ( oJ Sf r nt The rcconci l i ng d. rD$hL.h r h. r so 1 s lcl 80 r h. ir . nt it he! )i i cnl{ l rk1n,. A l he .\i v.r(. ol t he l whr chhasc\ nlndedinlo a dual i ty.and th.N i n rdnrrtr \ r dcr li. r l wit h us. ll and. in it s complctc extcmalilxrxnr n(l oppositc.possesscs cenainly thc ol i i sel l i t i s (bd mrni i i stc d in t h. m idstof t hose*ho know rhemsellcsin thc fornr ol nurc k owlcdsc ( PS:409) t al

r 80

lll! orata<trc or ttrr tr Widl tbn tbfi{a nftrld.a to co4 HGg.l co|tslctr. li dilotr.id of Sdrit i. thir ctal'.', &d givr. binraf. bdSa io tta dirculrkn of ttligid h th. Ht, rt r! . ndbcr of tuioitg dialccdcd ladriq$ ftuir !o b. pleycdod.

pt.r a

fi
dlrlcctlc

.llrr

ol Rcllglon
(Pheno,nenology, C. (CC.) Rligion)

E
R.llqfon
t v. rlrqdy !.cn, anory dlc miny dicholomic!

Sl
*

to nbdcm consciorr$c$ thlt Hc{cl wfuhca thcr. i! thc dicholomyoffaith andrcasol! (!!$ on an oppositioobctwccnCod and man, rnd intcllcct, rligion lnd philosophy. Hcgcl tharw. havcalrqdy Witnssd dichotomy this poitrtsin $e Phenonenologr,when consid0|c UnnappyConsciousncss, Crcek thical lif., (PS: thc EnliShtcnm.nl 410-l l). ln his discussion Enlighlcnmcnt,and ils appr'Ert viclory ovcr iD tbc chapleron Spirit, Hegcl clearly forcsh6doul rctum to rligion in this curcnt chaptcr:'lr. can ! wheihrEnliShtnmcnt rcmsin !stis6d; ytmiru of thc tloutld Spirit which moumsove! 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.andthis h&ebccnfllcd out in dirculsrcn of the unstablcDkcc of cod wiihin rc

tp
rtr

183

THT OIALECTI(

OI

iEL I6 ION

TH '

D IATEC TIC OI h 'L IGIOI{

Kantian fr.mcwo* of'Morslity'. It b no* therforrimc to rcrum l() rcligion to sc how fnith can bc rcinr.Srald inlo a lcss ooc{id(d phrk,. sophicrl oudook, in which rhc optosiiion bctwccn thc sheert\ tiznsccndcni.nd thc unerly $orldly is overlomci .Thcrc is indcd oni Spidt of both. but its consciousnc$ do.! noi cmb.rcc borh rogeftLr. and rcliSion appears a psn of eristcnce,of conduc! |nd activitr. as whose orhcr pan is fte life lived in irs rcsl world. As wc now kno* that Spirit in its owr world and Spirir conscious irstfas Spirit. or of Spiril in religion.are the sme. rhe p.rf.crioD of religion consisrs ln the two bcominS idenlicalwirh eachother'(PS: 4t2). Hegel s ailn in this chapGr. rherefore.is ro show what rhr, 'prfectionofreligion'might look likc. ad how ir can be reached b\ relisious rhought.Th laner must be radicallydiffercnt from lhe kind of religious bclief targeledby rhc Enlightenment. whr fa h wl|\ prcvedby scnpture(which w$ then shown ro bc hisrorisupposcdly cally inacc'rratc). b basedaroundsnefacrs to and relics {which werr lhen shown to be no more rhan natumlobjecrs), and ro involve a rran scendent deity (which rhen becameunknowabte). Hegetrakeshimsctr to have demonstded how rhc anempr by lhe Enlighlenmcnr pur lo religiousconsciousness asidewa! disasrrousi now selsour ro shos he how rcligion may be conceivcd in { wry lhar maks this ncsarile stanceunnccessary. that rligiousbeliefmay be incorporaled so wirhir philosophy. and not excludedfmm il. lle rhrefore otTers heri .econ srucrion or Interprerltion ofrhc dcvlopmenl ofrcti8ion.lo show ho$ religiousrhinkingmay be seenas convertdng rdrherrhandepanins on liomrhc insiShtssocenrEl rolherataonalisricphitosophicalconscrousnessof lhc modcm world. This chapterrhercforehas a more detin,re cultural-hisloric.l,rndchronoloSical characrcr thln thc prsviousonc: ll should bc said.however.th.r this ulcmpl by Hegcl to.swinS rcl, jnro grous conscrousness lirll suppl)n ofa scientific intcrprcrarion or hum:f lifc'(tlams l98l: .lo2) has proved highty conrrolersrat.r\ some havetakcn it lo compromrsc onginal Entighretrmcnr lhe projecr. whilsl othershalc seenil rs an Incvrlable disronioooflhe properretrgious outlook.In so far as borh ot rhcseresponses invotve whar l{egcl would havc senas on-sidedconccptions philosophy and farrh of respcclively,thir prsistenc an exampleof the eascwirh which is conr(iousncss can bcomenolJfi.,cdin rhrs ! av

1fu8.1'rsttrt.8y for ovcrcomin8this polrrization is to considr of Gligious coNciourncas,from 'n!nf.l EliSion' to

io thc form of.tt'to Evcrlcd EISion'.r thrcby ho?ing lo

fu from dicnrting u! fiom th. world rnd 3isndingoppGcd jurt Eligion whcn gopcrly dcvclopcdcxprEsscs this form. Hc thccforc oullook, rlbcit in a non-philosophical to rbow how rligiouscoN.iousncssmwl comc to adopl a upholdr r.thcr ihan rjeclsa lrtional viw of th world, so and li. cnd thc sltuggle btwm lhe EnliShtcruncnt rcliSious I 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 is

present ilself cotrsciousness H thrcfore wilhin religious conscious' ofrehgious telosIn theevolution thc underlying
h od.r to 3trblish lhat ir ils hiShest form it cln bc ftad. (and espccially arheiitic thinkeB ofth EnliShtenmcnt

ro with philosophy,and is not intriosically opposd h' as had F.qrh EnliShtenment) supposcd himselr te to rcligion'.Hegeltakes with natural h bcginning form.whcre most immedial' or rligionin ils simplest naturc and between andnaturc. thuswhere man la no scoamtion fom of lighl. and thenin rhe form of l. divirizcd.fi6t in lh
.Ddanimals.In light-reliaton,lighlis takcnlo be acreativcforce bin$ lhe *orld inio bcins oul of dartness.and which rhc indF thcrcforevcncratcs.This light-forcc lacks any detcrmrnanon. , lnd appcars insubsianlialifl comparison to lhe material then Rcligiousconsciousness secsrhc dcity in plant md aninal lhe godstake on lhc mosl primitive aspcctol whcre in lhe latlcr (s.en earlier in lhe rBnsition from lif lo Desire).in the of animal sods with each olher. refrectingthe struggle for beNeen diffcrcnr Mbal gmups.However.assGiety movcs of lhi! division into trib$ to the emergence empire and the

whrc shaPe'(PS:421). enters another into dlisbrings.'Spiril

' conceolionof God rflectstheir transilion from warrio.s

Ith

to as who now seethemslvcs rlating thc divine turalists.

la4

145

THE DIALECTIC

OF REL IGION

C OF R E LI6ION

This proccssgives rise to ftr 'rrtificea or master-cransn[r. whose task is lo fabricareobjects of religious signilicance,so thrj diviniry rhen no longer exists in a purely given or natural form. Al firsl. the masreFcmiisman only crcates objecrs that havea geometriQl shape.bul the abstmctionof theseobjecr! .endersftem unsarisfyin! lo religiousconsc iousness, lhat rhcratisnanbeginsto makeobiecr\ so in planl and rnimal shapes. untrl they finally assume humnn fom. Al thrs level. howeler, lhc statuesof gods thll rhe craiisman c.catc: cannotcommunrcalc us rn humantermsiwhenthis limitation rslrdn 1o scendcd, and the divine is sccn!s sharingoLrrhnguagc.lhe anrsan,' no longe. a crafhnra.. bur an adin. in so hr as thc gods he crear.\ no\! come to havean .,.yr.\rtrc function.

Religionin the Formof Art

ln movrngtiom naturalrcliSion to rellgionin rhc fonn ofari , llc{el makes clclr thal we are now considerlrg the religious ourlook oi elhical Spinr. which (as we hal'e sccn) Hegel took ro bc cxempllii.(i by the Greeks.As pr.viously. Hegel prcscntsns with a picturc th emphaszes aftacrionsbut also the limihrions ofthrs elhicll Sp;il the Ilcgcl makesclear thal it the lelel of us rcliSiousconsclousness. reprcsents,hiSherachievement than e\eryrhlngthrl has gonebetbr(. somethingrhrl is nradcp('ssiblcby lhc social tbml oflhc,rdln: rh t-i lS pi rn l i s l b f rh e n rn c i rh c r e d i !i ne..^sscnl i ,l ghrIn w hosf unr l ) l h . b .i n g - i ' r-s cf o I s c l i _ o rsci uancs\i s.onrri .ed onl \ l l c o rl t l rn fs i (rrl y . rn d i n whi cl i r behol ds l okl 0rL th. 'nusleri l c l !. r c S rl ol rts rcftrxl {orld. nor is it th. r!'\ttes5dcsrructi{nr rir ho(rI l 1 c o fl c sn o r th ri r s rb ]c c ti oD r l l sl c-\]sl cnr t!tri .h rJ . gi! . s rh e \e n rb l | n (.o l o rg .rn i /rti (n r romtl .rcd $hotc.bul of. r n *h i .h th c u i \e rs rl l i c .d o n ro r rhc i ndi \i duol ss hcti n{ ()rl i lhc e o n ttu rvrl ri \ S p i n t i s d rc i ;r' c rul i on i n uhi .h hatt,^re{ l . (o c us l (rD trs ti tu t!' src\u h s tx n eo l x ll . $ ho\caerurl i ty e\,\ rl e dnd r e' r e c a e hl n d c \c rl rn c In o w s k ) b c hi s ow n w i l l dnddeed c r {P S .115 Howeler .l l c g c l rc n ri n d s s h e rcrh rt th .Ixnnont he rssoci rres i rtl u w r hc pol, r i s u n s trb l c ,.n dn s e l c n tu rl d i snturl oni \ rcfl cctcd n rhf i l a6

ad of(jreek r.!sedy. in which relision in the fom ofnrl Priu' kr lh( nnrnr ar $hrch Spirrl lran'c(nds arl in orJer of i higher representaiion rtsclf (PS: '126). Itn -h|n!tc\' Ai we haveseen.Hegeltakesthe tuming-pointlron naluml relt' o nl rgronrn rhe l om of ar r r u r n\ ol\ e a . hr f i awa) I r om m an ' ff r r to pn to naturc. mcn \ relr r r on o r her 'l'. r o r har he! od\ nos ;lody the sralera' ,I,l rh( tsuddess Arhena.lot erdmpler'Blhcr thdn phcnomem: These ancient gods. Iirsr-born children of the Frl Heaven.E!.Ih. Ocean,Sun.lhe Earth s of Lighl with Darkness. which onlv typhonicFire, and so on. a.e supplanledby shapcs longe. crelturesofNaturc. r.aoll thoseTitans.and which are no hed, clhrcal Spirrls of sellconsclousnalions (PS: '{2il). llowcvcr. alrhough the gods now lakc on human ibm dnd are lly rclalcd to the humancomn niry. il is at liat difiicull lbr nhtrous anisl to bring rhe peoPlctogclherwith thcscgods. when !n hkes on a scultrural tbrm. Al lhis stlge. llegel argues. adirl rsprreslo be tncrcly { rehicle or instrumentfor the divinL r,ho kres lo scl isidc his o$n creativity rnd lrmply bc nrspftd li.ml bul hqis also awrre lhat he has labouredio crealethc slatues $ thrl he is also presenrIn whal hc has In.rd.. ntrndingbetween mrv ltel I ronlc an<ltheir sods. Thus. alrhoush lhc worshrppers slatuche has casrhas nr.dc lhe 8od{ prcscnllmonS rbcnr.ibc |b tt lS lno$s lhur hc hdscrcrlcd ! mcrc rcprcscntrliul. rs hc *rs unrblc ' i ' & rtcr hrnrscl l i n i t. Rothfr than sccinS ils 8od\ as Nttc. lh.rclirr!', thc rclrllu's Dccdslo mrkc ils dr!inirics Vt!r*. n) lhar lhc]. mav ne Ilnrnily linD. bul r r l{) r hr dr gh, r "a. I n l pn d not onl y i r seulpr ur al lr rbch lhc sntcr rnr! \ce hinrn'll rs simply lrrnscnbing lhe words ol' oi tls ttili: Ihc {orlt or Nn th.rcLrc de rirrds iurnhcr clem.nt Ihis lht eod rnolhcr mxlc ol cornina lb.lh thrn this at|3ntc, sell_ ts cl cmenr Lrngur8c an oulerr calit yt hal is im nr edidt clY l h.r cxrst.n.c . . Ihc god. rheretitrc.lho has langurgelbr the ol hrs sh.pc is lhe *ork ofarl lhrl rs rn ns oFn scll insplred. alnrrt -rn|ui |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) (ontrirsts lh's usc ot thc hymn lo the role ol lhe o'acle in rcll llitl (ul'urcs. shcrc in thc oftclc lhc dilinil) spcaks nr dn rlrcn t|oul lL'lulc 187

.ts

tHr otaLtcltc oa RtLtGtor{ tonSue. rcflcctingrhc fscr rhrr the omclewas ua.d lo setllc conrinsMl mdcrs (likc whthr woutd bc good !o ravct) whrchwerc n,i rr covcrrd by thc la*! ofihc Sods(which evcryon kncw withourhavnu lo coosultthc or.clc). Howcv.r. ahhoughthe hymn ru*s an advanc( ovcr thc oracl,thc worshipFrs nodcthl$cemclo fccl rhst ir ontt mrksgodprcsnr rh.m rn an impcrmannr (rn conrrasr rhL ro wly rc pcrmr'|nceofrh st6tu.)rwc th.rformov. ro a funher form of retr_ gious lif., of rh drr, which alcmprs lo ovcrcom. rhi! def.d b\ bringin8 spcch siauary logcrher,as lhe worshipp.s and sing hynh b.forc rhc ststusin ordcr ro wetcone and reccivcrhcir cods. ln orderfor rhrsro ratc ptace. woahrppcn rhe ancriprro purrr. themselvcs overcom md rheirbodityselves theydo not yel sce (for vil as residing lhe sout).They ihrefor in sacnfice rhcir marenrl possessrons, although pandoJ(icalty sacrifice atsoa Drelude this is r(, r feasl. which'chests acrlof sacrificel of rrsnsarive rhe oul sisnirl cance'(PS:434).Thecuh s emFs to rcsolve rension inslcx(l rhis by dcvoiing ilselfroconslrucring buildings, hoty whre crearive fte indrvidualiryof the ani$ ar lhe tevlof scutptumt is no tongern, an intusive: 'lhis acrionis nor rhe individuat labourof thc artisr.th,\ panicularaspecr ir bin8 dissotvd universality. of in (pS: 4j5l Nonefteless. temples the hreby creat.dnow comerc serve morc.\ places jls whre ciry canparade disptay weatrh Dower. the ard and In this phase rcligiousdevelopment. of consciousness r has joyou$andafiimativerclalionto rhcdi!inc, whrchis rcnecr&l thL in .tn feasling ofrhe wonhippcrs: rhisenjoymen( rhcn.rs rcveated whxl rhardivane risenLiahrrea y isi cnjoyment rhemysrcry an ofirs bc;u rPS: 4Jrr Hoseter.rhecuh mcrctyretarestothcdrv,""r,",,rr",,. s(lf-conscious is ontyrhemysrcry bread *inc. of(.eresrf(l life of nnd Bacchus. ofthe orhcr. \iridty higher. not thc gods whosc indi!iduutrl\ rs an(\senr,dt nrorncnt \etr'.conscrouin$r assu.h.rpS +l\l 'nclu'jc\ In $c games proccrsions godscontinue bc rcpresentcd,r and rhc ro hunBn (htjmpr,,n rr. trnJ nt t,r,n* fom. In rh(.rhlclr( who "",.. rnd \imuhancou\h repo\rk,ry nJlronat a .'f prde However. retiSious con$iousness comes t.eel to lhar ir cannor propcrlyrepresenl godsin rhis way. in lermsof.corporeal,ndl ils viduahly ofthe handsome wanior.lr rherfo.e tumst.rom ptaslr( rhc rns l(' litl.rr.) foms ro lhe cprc.lra8ed). comeJy. and

TH E

D IA IE C T]C

Of

i fLIGIOI' I

b ih cpic, thc gods ar scento Suidethe actionsand dcstiny portrayedin thc story,.s a conttollinEa8.ncy: 'They lrE
rnd thc positivc, over againsi ihc individuql self of

tliii l1
l
188

rtidr canoothold out againstthcir miShti but thc univcrsal llu! r.ason. hovcrs over thcm and ov.r this wbole world of to which lhe entir contntb.longs. as lh inatioml Nac.ssity a merc happ.ningwhich lhcy must fsc ai bings a rclf and sonowfully, for thesederertltdre natwescannot in lhb purity (PS:,l4l). In tmgedy, by conlrast,lhe .pp.-sr morc in contrcl of their dsiiny in rclation lo the beingswho *ror thcir righls and |rc se/y'corr.i.,lri hurnan nllure rnd knowhow tlE power thewilloftheir spcific and is atgues thisdifference reflected ihal tb.m'(PS:444).Hegel
ld thol wherea! in the pic th nartltor is the minstrl' who ootrid lhe story. in tragedy th hero or heroine spaksfor hirn id hcnce th actor plays a pan iz lh. drama. Nodlthless. of powrl.ssncss in relatiotr to the Sods is rcflectc'd by thc alier late and wf ch 'cfings ro th consciousness ol ^n dE empry desire for ease and comfort. lnd fble lalk or

howevea the is really.eveals, I (PS:445).Whartragedy

itslf, betweenfamily and stare.femic6ical subslanc Id nasculine. and lhe blindness of cnch sidc to ils othef. in tht w{} thc god\ mblca.j thc traEr( hcrucr: Thr aclion. their unity in lhc naluml downfall csnid oul. demonstrates Becauie powcrsanidboth salf-conscious characteN (PS:4'18). rolc of chamclcr In lragcd). lhe t(l8k,u\ (dn$iousness no lhinls oflhese Sodsas agenb dnectinSthc lvcs ofthe heres: the divinc is vicwcd as faie. Hesel rcmarls rhar 'trlhis l:ttt: thc dcpopulaln'n of Hcaven . . . Thc crpulsion of su.h which was demmded of lhe , in$bstantial prcturcnhoughts

(PS: bgins lGeek] Tragedy in ofantiquilythusalresdy

as funherin comedy. th represntarron lhit pnresscontinues ir ro Evealthatbcbind all isjusl can aod!uridgmasks be usd
xlor. Th gods lherefoE becom merely abstmct Platonic |n)cked by Aristophansin lhe ( /,rdr, as religious no l ongcr \cl . lhc dr \ r ne apan ln, m r l\ ell lt is t he

1E9

THE DIALECTIC

OT REIIGION

TI]E

D IA LE C TIC

OT R E LIC ION

relum of ever)rhing universat into rhe cc.rainty of rtsetf which, rl consequencc, thjs compteretoss of tta. and of essential beinS on the pan ofall 's js that is atien. Thjs self_cenainry a srateofspir;turl wcll-being and of.eposc rhercin, such js nor to be found anywher. our s ide th i s C o m e d y .(p S : 5 2 3 ). of 4

lfrl

argu.s thal once this posilion has been reached.relisious iousncss can neve. lind itself in a rctum' 1o naturd roligion o. I8ion. and that religiousbeUefmustthcreforclake $other form.

God ofr can by cncounterins in rhcshapc hurmnbeing religious

iouness recovcritsell and therebytakeus beyondolherprevrous i.i of reli8iousexperience: lhe Thr: Selfofcxislcnt Spirir hrs. as a resLlll. form ofcomplete immcdilcy: il is posncdneitheras somethingthoughtor imagi nc.l . n" r J' sumLrh.nu odu( ( ( i.a. , ' r h( c. \ c $ir h I hr or i mm(JD ' (.s(l l In rr ur Jl r clr r r on.r r , l r l{, ' in r hc r uh, r unuf and directly beheld Arti on the conlrary.this (iod is scnsuously ; ' r hr . t ', , d scl r. a. rr rcrucl InJr \idr . r lm . r n:onl) 130 ', , 'cll-

The Revealed Religion

I{egel now seh out lo show how conscrousness canDoirest saosiic(l with the kind of pu.ely secular outtook we na\c reachcd.bur nou movcs back to a more ovc.tly retigiousourlook and a conceptionoi lhc divjne that represents ad!ance on anylhinSwe have wirnes\e(l an h'tbeno lle purslhis in the tb owing terms:so tar. we havc molc,l f r om t he d o c td n erh a t A b s o l u te a c i n g is subsknce.(shi ch gi \c\ pnof lt y lo C o d a s i s e ti -s u b s i s tea n d i n dependcnr nr re.rti ty). l o.Th. Self s absoluteBclr8 (which gives priuitv ro humanity as hrvin| lhc k ind ofs u b l c c ri ri rlth a r(j o d i s s e e n ,acx,iw r to 10 lhe finNl st.rgcof religion. jn which .AbsotureLt.ing is subjccl. (where (bd will be scen as achievnrg setf_consciousncss l,/dri!, hum anit y. o th a tn e i rh e s i d cta te s u n d j atcmcar s r o!cr rhl frece(crrce Heg e l,n .rk c s e rr.n s j l i o nti o m rhe hl tpy consci ousncss,)l th Crc.k comLd! lo rhe unhrpny conscjousness Rom.n Sloicisnran(i of S c eplic isn ry fo c u s rno n rh ci n e !i l rb l c .d iscnchnnh.nlof rheso,l b g . t hart hc lbrmc rb n n g si n i l s w .k e . rs c o .\c iousncss conrcs Jaet to ,rhrr it mcanslo srv Cod is tcki lian i n ti c e l c m rl l a { s o t th c g o ds h s vani \hcd.and ttr. ( ) r . c l e s ,* h i e h p r(x u re e d o n l frn r. ul l r qu.sl i ons.re dunrh T he s l rtrc srr. fo [ o n t] n o D c sti o ,n w hi chthc ti !rng nut hr\ f los n . tu n rs th c h v n rn s $ o .d s t. om * hi ch bel i et.has rrc gof. T hc r o b l c s J th c g o d sfn )v rd en o s pi ri ruat D d and dnnk. N n(j o ti hi\ grme\ rnd lc\lilrt\ Inrn no l(Dgcr re.orcrs nrc t()\,r! 'n . onsc i o u s n !' s s h i s u D i ty w i th l h e di l i ne. Thc w o.rs ol rh( ol M ! ' $ n o w l x c l rh ep o { e r o fl h e Sp i r i t. rheS pi ri thrs garf((l tbr ils c c n ri n t)' l i l s c l f ti o n r th e c .u s h rng o ofgods aD dmcn. F Ifl ,^l

l<r ) l 'ls -, In ral rn! rhi ' ronn.rrl urod. . ons( i't usnL*hr \ . , m {r u r t idr r h( I r/, Jupr / / i^ \ I . G , 'J h! : n, , u D( ( onr e. r or h. r ]t| cr!srmcrtri ng' e' , Lnuw rbl L u. r' :hJ nr I r , , 1- nlr ur $ l he dr vnc nJr I L h r" D 6ct. ,' \ .D r.m. !..1h(humdn..,n(l , . r hr \unr r vr h3tr ' Nh. . J ( l'i {( Jr r ) . r ') Imc,,m.. L;od renr.r' F . 'uh{Jnic. r or I n h( ( 'lr r F hunun L( ( , r n, nr Jno ] l !ma' n{ urcn,rdr' ,oncd Jh- 'lJr . . I nJ( ( d. I r . . ! r l} '} \ ( uFr . ih. . H { ,,trr l . un.,' n JI r un( ( l. r r r l r h- , lur . brn ' hti r llc would bc set over lglinsl us ir ! turcl! lrrrs.crdcnl * l a& n' fhcrbsol ul c l ci ng shr ehc\ ist \ n\ r n. . t u! l {'lr '. onser or sncss do$rr l i ot r ir s. t cn[ l sr D] pli. it ] .t 'ut by lhus Fn| kr hr\c c' onre f,',lnt lrra il has in lict llrarncd ri)r rh. hrn tinr. k) ils o\rn hrgh(P S : .1i r0) Thtr s. ll. g. l xr gucs.onlr - I n lhe r e\ calcd l m crrnw c tnrl y concci \c ol t hc dr \ r ne r s ab! ' ulc. Thr s is whl -.rscncc thc lonn ol r cligious conscr ousnessl 3Lr{ urrt} .onsti tutcs hi Shcsl tlL hoFs rnd cxtcctrlions ol lhe sorld ut trll now hrd prcsscd lrr.id solelytu thrs re!clarror. lo beholdwhNribsolul! acing is. rnd lhislo coinI I n' l i nd i l scl l -(P S :461] A s t r e sh. ll scc.t lcgcl lNkcs ||a. wrlh hi\ osn philosorhicrl ourlook, rccordins to Nhrch such erpc.r.rions arc tirlilllcd in nnrch lhe sameray. so rhrr hi.rnd br thc tensrrn bcrsccn rclision and philosophy rs linall) xnd ir of discussbn HegelsnnNl F| E | pl c ov.ruome (l ]ora usct ulsener al s.c l l oul gxtel 99l : 176 : ll ) Fi rn.
t9 l

190

t,

IHT

DIALTCTIC

Of

RT L C]ON

lld{.!cr. helorcttls pornr.an be rcachcd. rc!crt.d relgrL, rhf t r r usdc r l $ rrh rh e ti l l o \rn f d rl i i .u h \: h o$ ean(n!t. rcrmrred ,n t panr c oh r In d r!rd u a ln o n c rh c l c ss h .rc tti s nrru(, \ tr us atl . r. . s d' s nnc ln rd r!rd u a l s ., c . S frn r !s !n ,n d ,!i dual el .rsD orvercquat\ t: S lhc uDr vc rs rl l Urh e S c l o r c v c h -' o nc.(pS:t6:)..to rci tl c thi . Se : pr ohlc r n rh e d i !1 n cN rs r B r\c u p rr\ i D rnl eorxrr, l rnrtkDand hL , rncl . r c s ur r c c te d o th a trh c rc tl Bro uc d w n u n i tJ, seel hl t l s .xi \tene\ s. s crn i\ m t r ( t l l .l r' rh i r o h j c (rr\ern (l L ttrl u !t pS : .16t):(n\l \ rhur non ( . one. r \ . d (t r: l l )l v S p fi rr \o n (rh rte ... tj cl ct .rr8u.s. r\ hrrd | ,r lhr r c lls r o o s .o n s c k )u n r!\r ' r rl , h x rt h xct ro rhc Lr.rrD r' n. rnd r,, ni s . . ! \ ll c r\rl u r\. b i \j s o t | l \ l ]Ith . b u r.h. { r!Ie\l \.l hrs srl t t.r\. 'r il nr ll hu R l c n .d rh rn u n rc c (rj c ,tes ttn rnl or l terc rnrtr Il cyor,l ri (i r l' \ . 1, , r,.. rrr' rr ,J rl /.* rtrrrr1 r | . r,,r ,.,,.,,.,,.,,,.,,..,,,,;,., ,. ' ti lully r c . ( ^ e re d Il e rc l i g r(' r\c o n s .rd u r) css,18el s. ^\ercr.rhl r rhL hi r . r l lc r \ o n o l rh . r.s u rrc .l i (nr\ t(, s h (tr\ r rhrt l hc r.rtrrrti (nr nol rl rs r t s c ll\ r r n l r.m l . rs (u l r\ d ^ ' d rr trf\c n l In thc Il c ol rhc eonr.rLL nr t ! or hc trt\tA $ h rn c i \ rre o s o r/.du\ su.h .\\hrr rr\utr\ r.r.rrr r hr : o l S trn l . ti .,j r !.(rn{ nd ot rh. rd.r or.rl f ' t r r t r \c n s h n .n r c onr Dt r rrr\. d rr\ r.I| o n N rth rl q l rd ro \ rJ.x.,\ ol thc N oti r)f rn b! r r r lhf r l rrrcc \rL .m a l ' r\n d \rr8 !trn r!. rhchrnonc,.t i n)nnner tIl ol n Irrrst n ol i n rn rc (l i r!\rn (j rh c fo n sprri turt rc.oIecl i (nr .. oi '1 lr f f , os c ( l rn d r! u l ls ti s u r. rrj rt o t rl s trn , (t,sr .1.)r) [c8ct rhcr.rar, s h, Ns h( $ In i n rtc n rt ,\ l i ! r.l rg rn \.()ns(knN ne\\k, ! Lr!ot\.ti I n f ui. l\ l j r\ro n ..r q u .n r{ j \ rb (n rr( l r\r ' \ trr' ..or' rhc \rr r!tr..r \ r x ' s c ( t r h ( I r r!h r(n rre n r h\ llr { ! l rh .r ru n r, k , rh (,i o L l l j r! (n r ht tnrLr\ ,r\.]r r(,\,c hi ^, , r r ir t ir , r .tl e .r\ .rte r\N ,Ij \. ! (n If. rh te I hr\ $ fhrt,\,)dr crt \rrrj (l t or ir llf ri !u e \ th tnth \ d ,\.r n . \h (tr\\ ho$ rhr\ rrrrr (n ret,!j ,j Lr. lhous hlhr \,L l r.rd ' '{ !e .(e (t.d n l r.rf\rfr(| | ngrhe(j rrrrn(tr(!r\ hcr\\ff c \ \ . r . c r rl rfN rm n fr. r.rn .u \t $ ( t . In f,!eact! rhc \vrJ-th.i 1 r \ r ( qur r .(l rr I \ l () h ( :rtfh fl .rr!(l b! \f..ot.rrrrc fhrL(\oIj h! h( Ne\ . r , r \r l l .1 ,' c ,1 ,1 u ,.,1 "rl j r\,(h .trj .c rn fi on(rt! .( ..pr!.r I f ir n\ . hot (rr r In \.h . .r.l e \| r. trrtu .c rhnrIrtr!.In r| (\l .nj rl \ ' r . jr r e\ c n tl ' l n!l n rn r tl l l c r.ti !f rrl l \ In i .nn\ {)l (,rtrtrhL l hrr r n( l ( n\ l lh e So r_ do r (;.(t i .rrrn ! rh c\o rtd_rnd ,n l h. l r| . l tcl fi rD ' f r h. r l' . ' r r rl . r J ,t r,,,.rrt(.{ J rt rtr..,(,r,,. ,I., I t .:J, r eI n\ . Nt irc h!r\c \ n \. ro i .\rr!h tc d i ri i cul rrcsl n ti (1 rhcrr tru. 192

0hrk,\ ophr e!im p|er r lr r r ilt . t r Dgr n I n\ Lllr l I. l pl Lrne{ s csscnl rrl l t D thc $rr in {hrch r.nvl|) r reali/.d In rl'6 \orld. So. rcg!tu|'n! |) d.r ot cr@tton. llc8cl connnenll: Thrs .rcrlnrS ts prclu!.\ troftl l-or rhc Norknr rlself in rl\ .h!'lulc ll's: F|nf '|tremcnl r hr r his clalm l l cgcl thu\ sc$ n prr.l l c l bcr wccn t hilosophical l tl Inl;flncd hy rcrson. rnd lhc ( hnsrrlrr r(ior of the creatidr. lltt 'i (i , i nstrnti .l csl i nrscllI n lhe sor l( i l- r kc{isc. lh. st or yol l * thy I hl l (ontc)\ thc srt In $h , . h t hc t hm llng {r bt c. l eom csk) licl lionr rhc $orl(1.,nr(c h. trie{ l(' rtll.rr or rt. Jnd lirl.rts hrs lb|cd lhn,rpron ,n nitur. nkl -.htc Intrn.drl c c\rstctrc( t lr nl\ r u \ I nr , ,r l'( r '! I r . or nr cr cicll ol nrro eors. ir iusncss t ho0Shlir nd. m or cot cr . lionr I nr nr . r lr r c\n i\ n, t t kr ^\ l tE cruscrhe rhoughlsrcnr s r rrrsnoltore l i no $lcdSc. bullhoushl hr rr schur ged$r lh l hoosht. ol ol hci n.\\rnd r\. thcrcl i ' rc. scll: ot t , \ ( , 1 r hooghr ( nr {l r nl lhc t | !rl \l rn i ' trcknrl l ) rh ouglror I n r hr \ $r ! t h n on. . , d/ r tpa.,/.srl houuo\ ocfe\ , r \ . r hr r he I ( ^r r h. l( {nr ol h( 't r gxl. r c * rth h., $l l l hnufh fh,. l, ng r h. lr ur , n r hf r r ( . l lf osle( ilc ol (rn\l rr(l | \' 1. $(i N r: t \ t . llcd lr ( r n r hc \ r . t r .ol , , t r ) e. n. c. l i ,,rr \rrorc $hrLh yrc lJedr ls liur l\ s, r h, r r l( nl. r i( l lif 'i sr r h r lir nr or l l ' rr| s.. rr(rn l h. !,r(l (n $r t h il\ u. ir r t r ! ' (rtl c\!or rr' l ,rl l en N h ( h. ] , k! r he. \ t nf "r r i \ ( r ) . bcl( ) ng\ . r r!rf,tr.r. n) f r(l ur( l hrn Lr r g nr l n( ) ll, r lI f \ , , 1r {. ( lt ! r t r ( lf \lh. rh,rj rrrr.t' Irh( \.rk,, r(i r h. ] . \ . 1 ( , r t ) | r r r . r h f l f ! ( i, . . ! , , . \ \i r," rurc.rhi n[,n! \., rrr(ir lr . r . . , lf i ! ir r hir '! r Lr rt,\ rr,rr h\ {tI.rr,f! (tr,l l l i f , xr r r l . ( r ir cr ir ', '1 r . r ! t ! r ll, nr , , 1\ l !. l l l l '1. | ] elll{l' lr l) . llegell! 'N( l 10 i rF(\' ,(rr!!ul i i fl r' r,l h,n rrarrr oJ rl i ( r\\rLr slhr l t r c( '. . r 1|r . ( l , el, ! , od\ t r ili{hl tn rrl r.. l r( rrtrrrng l h. nr c. hr r r c\ ol t |l! r l. nlr of . or ( nt l\ , , r , / , . {, . '. but nr r f l\ L.i -ttt!n, r,' [,' \, . r,{.\.!,i tl . r . \ cr c r . r rh.rr J,\( ro r(!,!trn i h, r he t r r ii r i $hl. h r . r lr f u. h. lL( l Fal oh rl \ urdrrl \rn! \neeul, n, \ .r d. x. . , df . r \ $hr ( h f ould r henhe i l (s nr\\r,l !,nr f\rJr.\\t r in t hr lo\ 't t r r cr l r h( r , 8hr ,i rn -.1..1 Infi rIg (nree nrri l o l h. slor \ ol lhc cr uc lr \ kr i r r r ( lr u: r f lcL r| 1o l l { r.l .rA U r\rl i i r ( hrn rn r r \ ( iL, ghl he r , ( l, sr nr I n shr r h lhr l r| .
l9l

tHt Dtatlcttc ol tcltGtoN divir i! t.Cn 8 livbg wi6i|r $c lpirind cornrtrloity, .!d thus as bclini .ny wholly EunctodcN CLrrrrti 'Thc d.oth ofthc Mcdiald ir lh6 &|lh lot ooly of hi! non /a, .lpcci or ol hit Fniculs. bcin8. for-lclf, ||ot ody of lhc .lr.!dy dcrd hu* dilpd of il! dtcrtial Bcin& 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 to do awry with .ll !!pcct! of Lsnrccdlc. in il3 rrligiou! thought,so it thcr.foc mntinuc! to hold thrt full niionrl insight, which HcScl sccaa! thc impcBtiv. bchind rcligiou! comciouln.ls, is only lo bc gaincd in lhc'bcyotd'. lt Ocrlforc rcrmins for philosophyto Nhow how this infight can trc gaincd in the hcrc and now: Thc world b indcdr'.nprr.itt rcconcilcdwiih thc divinc Bcinsi and rcgrrding thc divinc Bcing il is known, of cours., that rl rrcognize3 objcctas oo longcrdicndd from it but !s iden. thc tirl wirh ir in its lovc. But for sclf-cotuciousncas, irnmcdiat. this prc!.nc. still h&s not thc shrF of Spirit Thc Spirii of thL communiiyi! thus in irr irrncdiatc conscioosncss dividcd iiom ils rcligious consciousncss, which dcclurs, it is tnE, that tr t ?,r?rwr lhcy at no! dividcd bul lhis mr.ly trrlli.t uity F not Gllizcd, or hE3nol yct bccorncan cqually lbsolut! bingfor-sclf. (PS:47ttl

!tfru
lii

Phllorophy ar dlalectlc
(PhLnomenotogy, AbroluteKnowing) C,(DO.)

mfft{

nd

l|n!ililli
eflilli
fnovving
chapicr. u/. $w that for Hcgel. it mrde

ffi,il
giiilfirlr

chim lhat therc mi8ht b comnon ground tlligion 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.'. Howevr, whil in Chris-

findsexprssion in lh. idcaofrhis satisfaclion md m),thsof rligious representation, in tbis idais givena moreliteralmaning.
that preve.l us codprchending lhc { forn ar resolved.Llegclcalh lhis insight 'absolute knoe,/ing'.and thc that achieves he calls 'sbsolutc it

'Th. conkat of this picture-thinking the lat ttligionl is absolute Spiri( and all th8r now this m.c form. or to b. donc b to suor!d
lhi. tclonSs lo.oa.to6re$ ar rzcrr. it! dr!{dy havc yicldd ilself in lhe shapc of

(PS:479).
194

PHILOSOPHY

A 5 DIAIECT IC

P H IIOS OP IIY

A 5 D IA LE C ' IIC

At the end ofthe Prero,nnolog,'. it is now clar 10 consciou\ ness how this absolute knowinS is to be achived. For it no\ understands that it has faild to find satisfaction in the world because it has come lo the world in the wmng way, adoptirg limited concet. tions that mult be made mor complet: absolule l owing lherefor to the idea of complete or unirnp;ired rAtional cognition oi rhc -lqlates world, rather illan to knowledge of som non-worldly entity (1hc -_-e6-sdlute'). Hegl thus briefly sketches ways in which consciousnes must leam to bring thcselimited conceplions togelher,recapitulating the various slages thal the dialeclic has aheadyrakn.He beginswi0i Consciousness he argues that it should now be apparentto !\. and as phenomenological observers,ihat the standpointsadopted b! (Sense-ce.tainty. consciousness Perception, and Understandins) wcrr one-sided. and ftat thc truth lies in seeinghow no one ofthem doe: juslice lo the w.ry in which individuality,particularity and universnlir) are relatedin rhe object: Thus th objectis in part mnedtdrd beingor, in general. aThins conesponding immdiateconsciousnessi part.an othen g to in of itseli its relalionship ot beins-hr'dnarher, and heing-li, thefi ;.e.determinaleness conesponding prceptioniand rtr to pan erse,.?! or in ihe tbrm of a universal corrcsponding r0 lhe Understanding. is, as a totality. a syllogism o. th mole It ment ofrhc univeBalrhroughderenninalion individuahy. rr to also rhe relerse movcmenl f.om individuality throLrgh supcl sededrndi!idualily, or through dcrermination, the univer$l ro Il is. thereibre.in accordnnce with thcsc three deteminarior' lhal consciousness must know lhe objcct rs itsclt (P S ::l l l l )l Now, it is nor immedralely clear from thc Phenonenolop what tl\\ conccptionof individuality,paniculantynnd universality appliedt(, as our thinkins about objects involves: bul on my radins lhis is nol suQrising,because shouldexpectlhis positiveaccountro bc clNb wc orated ehewhere, in the Zoai. (as indeed it isi see EL: llil6{J 212. pp.221 71. For turther discussion, see Stem 1990: 54 76. anll Winfield l99l: 51 81. The Phenomenolos is thus a r/a ,cgrr!/ for consciousness. showing how anythins less than this compl.\ 1 96

will fail. and bringing to light the dialectical limitations

Lv. broush aboutthis fsilure. lt hasthereforsi/ed its essnand notivational furction, of leading us on to ihe td{ogical ihcr th positive doctrin is systenatically elsborated in lerms

crlcgoriesand thought-fonns. Lil|wise, HeSel discusseslhe various standpointsof selfReason,and Spirit. reminding us how each on its to be incompleteand that whai is now requircdis to lind Fvcd of uifying lbem into a more complex whol: Theseare the of ofwhich the reconciliaiioD Spirit wilh its own conscious-

they andsparate, by tlotcr is composed: themselves aresingle unitythal constiNles powerof this the I ir lolely theirspirinral
irion. The last of $ese rnomentsis. however. necessanly

r|liry nself and, as is evidenl.it binds them all into nslf As Hcsrilrnakes clear.lhe roleoflhe Pnero,'erolos'has 'at2). mo'nenlsalongside one 5 pui rhse'single and separate'
whn lakenon itsown:'our to sho\r whereeachis inadequate moments. h.re hasbnsimply lo aarler trScrier the separate principle exhibits the liie of Spiit in its entircty' of whioh in llcgcl then goes on to considerwhat makcs the standpointof at the end of the Phenontenologtdislinclive. as it that is. a rcflcctivc cxaminalionol its 10 undenakeScrencer to overcomelhc kind of one+ided posit'ons in an altempt consc'ou$ lbr such a Sciencelo be Dossible. iusl travetsed. to scc, througha processol selt-'examinrlion, t||usl have come I ctn idivc al a view oflhe world lhal will lndkc lhe world lllly lhcn lo conscrousness. wherc until then il has appearcd to conesponding the by takrngus lhroughlhe calcgorics 8ci.ncc. porl.aycd in the Preadd<r,nar, can forms bf conscNusness knowrng toachievthe kind ofdialccticaloullook lhal absolute 8y showin8 us how thesecategorieshave operutcdwhen in various world-views, lhe Pre,,,r"roloa) therefore ofappearances(PS: of '!h Scienc Knowing in rhe sphere role hali.g been compleld.we are now ready ltt prparatory lo the moreabstracllevel oflhc logi., wherethesecateSodes L.xami ned i n l hei r ow n d Sht : 197

l'

tl
I

PHIIO5OIHY

AJ DIAT EC' IC

P H TLOS OP H V

At

OTA LtC TTC

Spiril d|.rlfor!,

h$in8 won thc Notioo, dbplaF il5 x'sr

lnd rDov.mmi in thh cthcr of it! lifc snd b Sclzcs.In r lb. monrartsof it8 movcmco!no longcr cxhibit tl|.m!.llcr
lpccific tldpr o/ coarciorrr,r"$, but - sinc!

P""'old which lcd Hcgcl to adopt r po6ition in thc in ihc modcrn cootcxt (ci i absu/bcr! that t incr.diblc

diffdmcc hrs rctuncd into lhc Sclf - |! rpecr6. ortorr and thcir orS.nic alf-8round.dmovcmcni.
(P S :

t3t-46} otr this viru, whilc tha! nry tliu b' 'hings | fu6 6c Phenoncnotog, - in i.s criti$F of o{tEr o. r! a hiltoricd rn.lytis of dE cultunl snd rripl., | ltSin! of tnod.mity - w. c.moi hop. to r'ctpturc ils
for r Dotitivc docfinc in 30 fat.t it intrinlic'lly

In this way, HcSclprcplr.s us for his tiansition within the fron rhe 'shepsof consciousnds' of the Phenonenolost, ri 'spccific Nolions' (lh. conccpts caLgorica)of thc ao8ic, and or for Scieocein its Durcrnd abstractform. 'in thb ethrof its lifc

Con<lution
Pcrhrps becausc Hgelwas himselfa historicist. who blievrdt 'e.ch individuf is . . . a child oI his tinei n\ts pnilosophy, too. F own ,ine conprchenled in thorghts' (PR Prfice. p. 2l). rr cuslomaryfor commcnislors his worl to concludcby askin! on far his thouSht signiffcance has mcrelyin its own hisrorical conrc andhow muchof it conlinues b rclcvanlfor us.Formanvof Hc!(l to worts. includingrhePlen |'t"rorogv. ir hasbnsuggcsied rh( thar
w rnay admire them, we cannol now lak them in the way llc himsclf Intendcd rhemto b. taken.as our peBpccrivers crucEll\ .'

t ioblcmrtic notlon!. docsH'8Gl |.. howcvcr.ttrarsuchr histoncirt approach of prop.rlv Hcgcl's undcrstanding 5 f.ilin8 to interpr.l rpF r tnot! Fculiar thrn lhy rctlly I ard maling lheln nuov curtt;r commntltorsnow offer lo-cslled 'nonrrdin3s oflcrms likc Sprrir'and'ldcarhatbring$cm cuit i'p".'y p.op."tivcs lwhcrc Spirir i3 utrd'Btood bdbiccrrvily, for e,Gmpl.:scc williams l987l Atd re_r'adingsor r'con' !s - [adings arc dismissed merely argucdtltar thscconccptsplry a ftt lcss o{d rlso tc I Hcgcl's lhinki;g than miSht st firsl appcar'Thus' for ar rciount I have offercd finve ot rhe Phenonenolos' r.r fic onc he actullv held. we can leam from H8cl' tauSht he I ir lcamis not everlrhing actually
to .houd lhat il is possibl follow Hgl'stcrl withoul gllcepiion of Spirir being rcquired. vcn if this rich

fund.mentally differcnt from his (post-Darwin, post-Marx.n,

Auschwilz, post-modem, whatever):we must thercforedistinsl or

clearly btween 'rational th kemel md the mysrical shll'(K. Nl,

1906: 25). btweenwhal is 'living and whrt is 'dead in H.!(l thouShl(Cro$ |9 |5 ). How much of thc Prefun.,roftrAr. then.sh\ we concludcis lost to us in this way? Som. will clain lhal we cannot now take lhe Pr?ron.x"n srioully as a whole. precisly bccausthe centml Hegelian k around which it is conltrucid suchas Spirit', 'absoluteideallsfl' and absolul knowing - ar too eirnondinary to hlve plaus

I
l9E

b r,qt. out of handin this wav vary' bul t*o are'ommonwhich metaphvsics ofessenlislisl h ii rhatir h a producr

is nol Nr. cv.n if il is admitled lhat the P,e,ot"oloal' nas hacccssible to us in this way as an independenl teil rl alien to abitncd lhat Hegl's syslmas a whole remains rn so lhi. *ill cut us off from the P/l?'du"ndli'&r al 'e3$ (r. I havcdone) to inleSEteil inlo the syslemin Sener'l' for k in parricular.Thus. manv have claimed^that first the ^the to remain living . it must b divorcd from -E cyclopedia, which is assurcdlv 'dead' Rasons for

currcncy io modcm philGophical consciouincss. Thcs. are src'r

conccpls rooted in parb of Hegl s background that are last ac(c' sibl to us (his Romanlicism.Chnstian myslicism. or rationrlrsoc

and d.dEc bin8 from essncc lh world frotn thoughti sl odds wnh I tt tlhc di.lcctical m.lhod it cnplovs s'ls it I on wh'ch of losic {such &! lh l6w of non_contradiction thE damning ,l ;rv rel's(ct \tood 1990:I o, Given

r 99

I
I lLl l

r Hr Lo50?Ht a t o ta ta (T t(

P X ILOIOP H Y

A S OIA ITC TIC

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 word snqi to nrcgnr. &c two tcrt!. whilc obbing $ llncr of its vrtal
or try to .void thid bix !t thc c@ of d@n\irahc its lppdrrnt iordc rnd orgenizinS schcmc. Phen tderclol<l

Now, h.rc i! nor thc plrcc !o str.mpt io offcr a Inor posit accout of lh lr8tc, but obvioutly this would bc onc wry our ol dilcmma wc h8vejult trcnposcd.For, orcc a8aiq many tors $ould hold that thc ,oaic itsclf is ncilhcr !o .mcraphysicalr .ssnlialbt, nor !o biz{.re in i$ hethodology,as it is hreassumcd b: tu lhrt casc,thc Preronerologr is not ncccssarily moribundc! when its rclalionship thc ,oglc is r.ten sriously.As I hopero h, to sho*rl givinB thc Pi"rotneraldgy an i roducroryrole ro rhe 1
coneivcdofas r di.lcctical invcstigalion ofc.iegories 3howsir k)

more thanJust a collclion of obs.wrrioos on phitosophical or on poliiical .nd soci.l lhcory, or on rhc problcmsof nodem becau!. I s.c no rcason why lhc aoSicint.erclcd this way jhoutd
'dead' !o us" I havc not f.h ahsid io associaic thcsc two rexrs dirccr

tl
li
I
200

A third hisioricizingsrSum.ntlo b. coflsid.rcdconcems nor alien natu ofth. conccpbH.gcl cmploysin lh pn'one"o/oer.
of the othcr paris of thc sysrcm with which lhc plerondotogt c,\t1

linked but rrthcr theaoal of his wholprojct,andthe uodcrtyif,g look andarpiritions whichrhargoalcxpresss.is this,prhaps tr nx
than anlrhinS els,thrt may be fck to sepffateus liom Heget:in

claimlhat to him who looksat rhe worldrrtionaltythe world l( rationally back',andin hisdesirc enable lo fet.arhome. Itc to us may seemprofoundly of touchwilh conremporary our sensibiti|
(SeeGeuss 1999lor a helnr'ul and lucrda(counror how think(^ as Schopnhaur. Nicldchc. and Adomo cane io reiecl rhis lrrtr

mor! difncult lo &sscss dadion is r largonc. rnd pcrhaps rgpcan. For, onc. .g!ia Hcgcl's posiion c'o be llly i *.y ttt"r ln"y tvoid somc of tlllc conc.mr (cf lJ-41). whil it could tllo bc lrgucd thrt (hc flith ir ml Fo8rrs! th.l HcScl's Projcctis stid ro cmbody ua(.libou8h pcrhlps hi3grndio{c conctPtionof Philos_ thcrc is no nccd to rcsolv' thclc lCrn 1999).Fortunatcly, laorsc while Hgel's dm as I wholc mry b. ooc of or ', rnd whil. lhis may well secmunrcalizabl cv'n 5 u!, it dos not in my view affcct the valuc of thc just bow btrd , whosnegativrolc hastrcenlo show is io achicv.andwhst ot'strclcastandin our way. lcbm s good deal fron Hc8l's critiquc of whal bg clains $ar aspit! to provide ssdlfacrion for h li Phenonenologr,*hil res.rvin8 judgcmcnton tim!.lf can avoid thes shoncomin8sin lhc positrvc in b builG on lhis apProach the svstcmpropcr' (In lhis chrllcngc to lhc HcSclian '! words ofret a DcrmatEnl ica srveslhe end of reconcilcmcnt. but nonc of idalism andno clainedby [HeBel'!!absolutc whetherin loSic or io I.|rdn d consisc - hasstoodup. G7).) hi.tory' (Adono 1973: oflhe Pleto' Itc. thisis not 0odenythatcenainaspccts time.so thsl pansofit ar' Ltr it vcry mucha workof its ll.lprical interstibut for sucha denseand In manyways rarelvlfor exarnple' work.this is the casesurpnsingly whereHegels focusis obvrsction. Reason Obscrving
!.icntific outlook of his pcriod. lhe /)r,,1.'n hc is inlerdr w can still rak se.iouslyand reintlrprel In our own I of boursc,a hisbricist cririqueof anv work ha( its own *ith tlegcl, dcspiteth repatcd ,|!hrs 30 offen happnd for $rs, or by analylrcphilosophcrs. rmplc) he lo us once again, in wsys lhal were tlomed to spak

To us.thegoalilsllfmay appar lroublinS nsapparenr quierism rn

consralism. lrhile Hcgcl's hopsrharir could be achievedmay naive, or foolish,or plain slf-deludinS: and.elen iflhe gmt and r

(bv passd Mar sl malcnallh.t his time hasinevocably Gitrugined. lt tms lik ly. rhercforc' ihat &s long as mther I blansrcmrinourpmbletns. rstofic livingprcs.nt Phenonerclogr will continuclo belong rAsrrharrhe

hopes arE accepte4 Hcgcl's sugSstionrhat.phitMphv tand sciencc. an,or r.li8ion.or politics rh.irown)canaccomplish or on \ aimsnay sccn lbsurd.andlihlc morethans functionofhis overbk ambilioosfor hisown cho6.ncalccrasa systemadcphilocopher.

20r

re g
ss
ttarrorr.rDbgy In .oibn
r FiuL turo. in BcnE. HcScl hrd t r'|!ha.d ?ri!.r r cdnrna ay d| t poliricd p6npl .r by
Cjl, whhi w$ publithcd tMy|lndy

f$ qffi

l79t' rff.r Hcs.l h.d bn his po3itionin 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 ii connolrtiotu of both. I will scn rally os. tpirit . I lhi! b llF md.nrg ed in Millcr's Englisht'|n$ bior, ol rhe Ph.aoncaoh'!4. s hich k th. on. t Efe' is th. trarul.ti@ of thc c.|lta Lm h k inDotunr ro rslizc dut rh.rc is . thrt is onctr ovcdoolcd in i|.i,rrion in Cr|fu (Mir8 bdvccn 'ryi$d.rdl' sicrEc s hlitn I body of ortrtruld lmwlcdac) 3d 'Notu.(m.aoing n tunl scimc. .! this t rm i3 to phFicr, chairty. .d biolos/). ln cl.inlDlid .cinc., rh.|dor!. lt d|.l hi! ptilor.phy c6tirur... 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, n rn.d ' Rudom nc s s . ! ls o. s c c hs no m or . c o n g . n i r t i s o h o s r \ t r , , rill r( r ( n, . ' \ jhhl ll! , * h r t , \ jhh . r h 'r . t i . r thtur\. ! I Zcno s irlunrnlsl tlo* r\ rr nos\rhlc ktr sonrelhrn! io hc lh. ..0 , lhrr8 lnnn. nc r ne r o r not hc r , lnn^r Fhh . n s r l ' r Ih.li!f,n ot th(, qu.!rnr! h.$ r\ oN rhrr8 lrxsrnlc. !r\cn lor nrpnonnlr (cir.i 's orh.. rhrt\'Somc \brcnr.or\ i, .r. rr. aslnrd or .cfr.d o' r,rr., ktr !r.m.d. nndrh.r. rr n r.n\n{ l^-t*ccn rhr{ srJr.trurs rN Mfl, nrl.nrnt /'r lrrrl' rlJpenrtL' .\(lunc t \ holdrn! ruc r.r u! rrnn I , I d t't' dt l, t r r lt hlt t t t nt t , t s D. e r ljc { t r r e n . t r t / , . r 1 {) r s r ( c c t ( r $r h.. rhc qucston ol how /, r\ tosrhlc. gi!cr n\ rftnrrnr c\e rL, i 'h \.. ho\e un hr lru.lrtro lhc\c rptarcDr c\dud.rs) \ n, \., t ho tr l l' r n! \ ljl loS. t h. r ' lh^ t , h , \ ot hr . r l u n d c r {i r ( 1 | n C . , lrn no nl n. ") t . uc r r r . r s k nr J r onr lt x b r h | \ . N . I r l n 'l . n'j nllr . rl 1 \ \rh nr L / ' / r u, , r r dnl( r . \ . r h t h. 1 r ! , r 1 . ! r t r . & l n ! r \ . 1 ! r ! r . \s^ rl Nl\ lt nf unc h h. r . Lrh, ( , . ( lL!n lr n. * h q h . n | . \ r h L . n r . L . . 'e rr.roR t h. , t r ! or ' r onjn. t nf h\ \ ( . e n d r n g o l r h c / , {r \ l,r h c fln l hn. r . hr r r c t . a/ r li{ r r or t h r if f ( iic h . $ r t h l u n h e rr r t . r L r t r . . set $ ( . nhs r ! lL) { ) r 1ll I '\u rL{' r r ' f on. . ! r 0lh. r . ' f N u\ r J r n I n 8 t r \ h l i r n , 't u N n r , (icnn . ( , nJ &! , r / / ( onr r f r ' r . r lr n u c n r t r n r l l o \ t . r l u r l '.!n kri \ . r l! , h. l. t , t r r l\ r i r r n\ r \ r l' c r l . ( rr h . r ll t r l r t o \ c \ r h F . r . rr.h n( . r l t . f ln \ . t r h. r ! . ! \ 1. ! r t r r r , r t r ur c \ r h e r 'u ( rr h , r t r . D o u f (,fnn .t r r t Lj r h. \ f r h / , . ( ?r / / ! r \ h.h c 0 l r 'r L t . ! r \ L , ( i , r / , ' c l. ! . \ rr.nfrn f r , r r , At or . n\ o f t . r \ \ . r L! ". f r t t r r r c l r n ts r t r n r | ! d ! . r t h . r rr \rI(l r llr r 1. r r f r it r r \ il Ll \ . r \ . . f , t r 1L . u l x j . . t r r m l r \ '( j L | i l r l ( r . , ! rr.r hc r t r n( ls r hr , i\ ur r r l lu r [ ] t \ ot, / . , & ! , r / / I o r r ri. lJ t t r l, \ . n r \ r n [ ( ^1 | l( t r ] r . nn . n ) s . . r [ e r . r s r t r r h c r $ . ! lr(!nn nr ! { , r h ihf \ l. b[ hr \ \ . . r r hf t r n r \ r ^ r h n n o , | '\ | n t r l h r . n i.dr (( l( ( . r r n. ! r hr t . ! r k ! , t r r nr ' ( n r t r . r ! l r r t r . 1 't r l ( I ) k l r \ , \\trrrr. lr ' ! r r $[ r r hh. Ar us t r t ) . \ c ehnlJ t 9 e l u r t l l n t . t r \ t ] l r 0 r ) L t!r 9. .lriL)r0. md ,t7r 9 I I llo bc d\ L) r r 78. ' lh! r . r unr hF f r n r l r r I t r ! f t . ( h . h B r k l r . 1 1irr,\ lr [ \ r f ! , t r r $ r r d c r ! ' 1r r ul\ . or c o r s ( k {] 5 n e \ \ d r r \ l r t h f r . r .

ttr onno\ilnn d,/ rt' r,r,r ol rndtr'dualil! rnd 8.n.ralil! ThL trxll coNefr, v'dul h mlrcnrl \Dluhfllt. lhe /rr .r ,!t,: rhc lcnct 's lor'te.lll_ - shclher it h. thc rcaltiy ol.\I'.' r!1., t.$. p(v.nlk,n s'dc! m$t play thcir I'an. A |rcfr., of motulir-!.or ol |x'lirc\. d, i rrnguhr p'Ne ol mdllcr d|ng rs nol onlt thc c$n{'|. ol! 8enn5. '|\ is nor N.(1, r tun.r(,n. he or shc ,s ! l,v,ns esh'andbkxxl A n ^on l|xjividual A nol't'cil lcnd$ rs not nrcrclythc.cnrrscnlatlveol a gn)un, and ho!'cs. lE or sh. ,s !n cnrtrcly uniqr( .hanctcr s,rh uniqlc r'eals .rlhcr ,n rlt lso \idcs. lhe rcrllty ol (hrngc r\ r unrly. lhc 8ul. htond urtt ol licdoD. [J.rtr. nnil r.,$n: hrr llcscl hnr*-lf [r*hl!hN lhL Nl(rnrcrl rnc ol lhc PEl..c 'n FrblNr! lnnrunrcmcnl ntr thu l'rMdk dl,){r rhrt nnnlrr.d ,n \ anoh F . r d r u l \ r n l N {) r l \ c ! l o N r r . l 9 9 N :6 l l ) l n l h . cl .cc r h . r tr l h o r c x t 'l r r n sh r \ \ r . {\ . o D e . m r n ! $ h n l sccn rn ' h r n r r r N th e n ctd \ o r (oirtftrng th. tnrlosophy rr rs prc\Lnl slrtuipoiir. ind rn rLldrlkn' lonnuh: shi.h clmntlt rnJ nonscnsrol tlrrlon)drL.ll rcnrntrni InJ cs thc tjrgnrl) or thrnMth!. rnJ 8en(rrllv ror(cnnng Nhnl r\ ca{ntrrl in thrl(ao|h! .nrl r\ nud\ -

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 b d b c c r ! 't l l r g c l r sr l r tr r n i s ( . r r r tr i r !tn n r fl fu ^ .1 \.\ In th . h . r n l .r cd l n t \ r t r \ I h r r , {r {i 'r i t r ( \ \ $ ..tr f,i h \.r \n i !. I 'i ,'\ n . r l n i n r r r n r r , f l l . ! , t . r . rr l r s.n { !r 'r .r 'r r \ ( r l r r h r \ \.r \ thrt

The dialedic of the subject

! r h N h r n \ L r l r r r . M r l l e r t r . ( . L ,i Jsh r t .tr l n r r t! h .r .. h !l h r \r h ..o m c n r tr u 'M u n r r \ h r n r n d \ . ^ r u l r ' , t r N l l sl .r r n ( t \h \. u\ul fl I:nF||\h n((orrh ,n rhrss.clur. ljerhrl\ trr onicr l,) i\,!tl rh. o l \l '1 1 .r '\ r .n tl r r n ! o l A,{,r ^ 'r l //. n h l c n d r n S '\ o l . , {n r {i r r ) n \ r rhrci {rcrns ho nn.0 nrcrel! ri th. \rfl{ or \(^.!il. rianhrnd. ot

204

205

l,

r|Ota9

th. dhhcd< of f|.rorl

I g.g.l *! d.loe b ris.dil8 tt|l bo.h6. Eif.d pairin or i|! G(t& d &.6! dmilt FTcctitt of iidividdi|.ic Rdo, !n bolh oc.rid.4 .Iil ct|r |dnc ry..}.tit of rhc tlro n r!q|ird: cf SdilLr 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.neEl d.licloF|cn of hrntr culnrd (l) Th. obj.ct lrrld| b.for! r! d . $llot , trr co||nr.d ntul

a; rcrdihg

TM E r!
rf rffilr
ffi

nuid.

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 rhr C.nn n cm Slrrt Lr, wbich dcrivc! iiom s/re, m.$i.a .cll'ron,. r tid of h.bit d rnod. of cordEr tiollowcdby | locid grcup and r.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) .

(2)

ffii il'\l1
d.trilcd suggca_ of srac. lnd acccssibility. fq finlhcr,rErding rclslin8 to crch chapi.r ur A dvcn !o work slrilable in Enghsh shonSuidc lit rdur in Cctmsn snd FEnch is providcdin of lrlt scction.For more extcnsivcbiblio8rap$ica oirh. Phcmn..1oktg,, seeHarris 1997:ll pp 479 501.andslcwrn srewanred.)( 1998), 527 52.

lrrilil

*tll
,.r,ll

!rlrri

ThatrenomettorogYin <onten
Th dialecti< ot Rallgion
I As Hffii! 1997:ll. p. 649 poinb our. .r.v.sl.d' i, ,olr|ewhariru4cu 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,,vhictl i! nor. lik. 'nlrrif6t' d .nud. .vid.na: lhar is. ir lhi. forln ofEti. gon *h!r b imporien b rharoodirg rbo{r tu k hiddG[ nor tt|.l tEr r.ligiou f.i6 ir foud.d m r.v.l.rion. Fd e of rcfcmcc, I havc k.pa ro rh. Milld rtrnlLtiotr. bur rhis cwclt shoutdb. kcDl in mind wlEn th. rcrm'noloty of .r.qLd rctigiq. u!.d 'r

H.sel\ IiJi und w'r,d:

bcat and mosl rccent intelleclualbiogmphy of

snd 20ma.lbr a dclailcd magislrisl i3 Pinkard of thc dcvelopnent of Hegcl'sthouShtup ut il

Fblicdion of the Pi4o,nstrdloal, sHanis l9?2 Haftfu 1983i fot r synopsis s.c Hrrris 1993. Luti.s

rcmsins a classic trearment For an rcccasibla $lplng of th inicll.cual andculluralissues period. aeiEr 1987 s.. in icd dcbrte Hegl's 207

205

F UiTHi

R ADI I { 6

f U R i H ER R EAOII{G

Ceneralttudks of Heget'ssyskn: Thc following p.ovd. rccounrs ofHesct\ rhouahr a whotcan,t. !s plli|c of rhc Phenonenotogt wirhin ir rhararc u!.ftl for 0|e bcSrnr, studcnt HoulSllc t99l, Houtgatc2001, Robcns 1988:68 [i Roclmor 1993,Singer1983.So 1969,Srcm l9t. For Hc8ct, t rminology. Inwood1992 a hclpfutrcsourcc. is For morederailed advanced jtudiesseFandtay ard 1958.ln$o,d 1c65.pinkard te8s. pippin teEq.Rdd,n8tvr^. lrsl f::fmy Rosen 1974, Stemlcc0,Tsytor tq75. Stu.lies the Phqonenotop: oJ ThfoflowinS ofTer srudies rhcphe,onen,logy a wholethatnr of as ustuI the bginning to studnr: Ddeck tgtt. Fmnco1999: I t,,, 8t pinkard Hanis 1995. Nonnan 1976, pippinte()r, I999.pinkflrd 2000b, Ro.kmore1997, Solomon t993. F!. morcadvanced derailcd and studis Findtay see t977.Ftay t,)8.1. torsler 1998.Hanis t997. lteideSScr 1994,Hnpotire 1974.Karf,, 1976 and 1983. Kojave t969,Laurt976,Lowcnbrg t965,pinkrnl 1994,Simpson 1998, Solomon t983, Stewart 1995. R. Westphrl K_ 1989, M. Wesrphat and I998b. On the Prelue ond the Inlrodu..tiin. The Preface rhclnrroducrion discusse.l y in Dudccklesl and are fu 17 li2.tla.ris1997: pp.l0 207.Kainz19?6: 6t. Lrucr te7() I. 54 23 40 and270 300.Lcwenbcrg1965:I 22. RNkmore19971 t.) 6 Solomontgl r :t7 jts. and M. $tsrphat tee8b: I 5lj. Nomrxr l98l:9 28 andSrewan 2UX): 52 d;scuss Inrroducrion n.l 3l rhc bur
For specialist sludies see Adclman 1984,Gillcspiet9841 6-t-8.1. llcideSger 1970. Kaufmann 1965: 161459. Lamb 1980: 1..11 w. Marx 1975, Sallis l9??. Schachr 1972. Srepelevich t990, anrt K. R. Westphall99Eb.

The dl.l.ctl( of the obl.ct

I9.-t0, Hanisl99s 2214, Hsrrist97: l. pp 208 315'

in chlpteris dis.uss.d Drdel l98l: 63'91. Flav

191616l-42' l42,K,'ir:.z 197417'1 Hyppolite 45 1994: 128. 1965.2t-74.llntet 1976:t'G89, Noimrn l98l: 29-45' 194:2G45. Pippin1989:I 16'12,Rocklrrtc 1997:37-58, 20d)i 53-101. 319 1983: 424, Stcwan Solomon 1998: .10. 1 59 1998b: I 20.

chrpter 15 a whol. s' tc.ialist studyof th Consciousness

1912.
s sctioo' Cnig l9E7i of studies the 'Sens'cenainlv 1986.La'nb 1978' Dulckheit devries 19884. 9, De Nys 1978, 2000 and Soll 19?6, K. R. wstphal 1996.
i$ studisof lhe 'Perceplion sclion.see Stwan1996,

and 19984. M wcstphall99Ea. K. 1986. I. westphal

sc of rlist studies lhe 'Forceand thc Ljndentandins'section, l9?6a. and Munav ls72 1982.Fta! 1970.Gadamer

th diale<tl. of ttre subi<t

9l l19.

l.ppl16446' 3546. ll.rris 1997i 8l t984: l12,thrris1995: 143215. Kain?1976: 197'rr Hyppolnc t994: 129.{8. 1965: 75 l12. Norman Laucr 1976:9(1124. LocwenberS ?E Pippin1989:143 Tl Rckmore lr 4ffi6. Pinkrd 1994:46 57 :59 79. Ro$n 1974:l5l-82, Shklar1976: 69 SimPson l98l: 425 ?0, Slewan 2000i l0g4' M 40-?4. Solomon
l 1998b::l l8 .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

I I | and 1986. Ncuhousr Rauch sherman999 55- | 60,wahl 195 ' l4l 90 nrns1992:

208

209

f UiT H T i

XEADII,IG

f U R IH ' i

R A OIX G

Ihe dl.lac

c ot Re6on

Thc Rcason chaplr discusscd Dudcckt98l: t2t 84,Flsy t(r8l is in I 13-61,Hsris 1995: 50, Hanis 1997: pp. 447-621 47 I, and It. pp l-146, HFpoliG 1974: 219,120, K^lnz 1976: D3. Laucr l9t(, 98 125-76,l.,ocwcnberS 5: l13 A4. Nonrun t98l: 6? a5, pint.,d l 1994: 7+-114, Rockmorc1997: 80 0. Shklar 1976: 96 t. . Solomoo lgEl: zl0l ll and480,534,Sre*arr 2000:t65 2E?. For spccialist studies Hegelon rhe issuc ideatjsm Amer\t of of see 1991, Stem 1990. Wanenbr8 t993,andK. R_Wesrphat 1989. For a specialist lrudy oflhe 'ObseNingRcasonsrlion.secLnnrh 1980:98164. For specialist studies llegel s discussion physiognorny of of an physiology Aclon1971. se Maclntyre I9?2a. vondcr LuR tesr and For a spctialist srudyof Heglsdis.ussion of.thc spintualanrDr.,l kinSdom' Shapiro s 1979. Forspcialisr studies Hcgcl's of cfitiqueofKani's erhics Ament\ see 1987,Hoy l9lt9, Ko6Saard 1996.Lotrenbach Tenenbaum and t9,)r. Sedgwick l98Ea 1988b, and Shklar1974. watsh1969. R_\vcsrl|h,,l K_ 1995, and Wolxl 1989, l99O:127-41, and t993 the dial(ti( of Spirit TheSpiritchapler discussed in lrudcct t98t: 185 244.litr\ is fully 1984:161226.Hams1995i 79. Haris teeT: . pp. t47 5:r) 61 Hyppofire f974: 320 5211. Kainz 1983:I lo7, t.aucrtsj6,1.1.7,\. Lewenberg 1965:18528?, Nonnanl98l: 16 t04, pinkard l9r).1 ll5 220.Rockmorc 1997: 54, Shktdr lll 1976: 208.SimFsoh t42 1998:75 9lt, Solomor19133: 79, Stewan 534 2000:288 l8:]. Nl We$phal1998b: {6. l2l rbr sFcialislsrudies HeBl's of discussior of,r,/rsr,r! se s I 9&,. Mi Pictercil l97tl. andSleinr 1984 210

sc. of ?.caslisi studid of Hcgl's discussion thc EoliShlcnmcnl IE3 228,St.m 19934 Pinkardt997, Rosn1974: 19E4. 1997. of studid of Hcgel s discussion the FrnchRcvolulion
| 976-Habcnnas1973.Halfis l9??, Hoineth 1988,H)"polite

1998. Snith Sctunidt Rincr 1982, Rip6iein 1994, 1998, Nussr 1998 and Sutcr1971. Wokler 1986' se ofth 'Moralrty'scction, Friedman isl treatments 1977. and Jamros1994:82 127.Robinson t9?8. Hoy 1981, Wcs9hall9'9|.

the dialedic of Rcligion

l98l: 245 70 Flav tully chapter discussed in Dudeck is Rcligion

ll, 80 22748. Harris1995: 91, Hanis 1997: Pp 52l 7O7' : 529 12. K^inz lglu: 125 71. Laur 1976: 210 55 1997: 221{8, Rockmore 199.1: lq65:292 351.Pinkard Solomonl98li slt{} 635, Slcwarl184-454 M westphal 78, \vrllrmr leq2:221 52. | 187210.

l99,ll ?ccralst studrer *t D< Nys l9ri6. Ihos l9ll9. JJmrcs Schitndorfl99li. and Vicillnrd-Baront 998.

ae Philosophy dialecti(

249 l-84. Flay 198-1: 6tj. tlaris lee5: 92 7. llarns le9?: ll. pp
l, HyppoIG 1971:5?3 606. Karnz l9Eli I72 86. Laucr 1976:

Absolute Knowing chaprcr is dis(usscdlully in l)udcck l98l:

, Lcwenberg 1965: 154 71, Rockmore 1997: 179 94. 1998b: 455 68.M Wesrphal 2000: l98l: 61541, Stewan 1992: 251 I34 Williams ll 10.
.occislisl studi.s sce Bubidge 1998. De Vos 1989' Devos t998,

199E,Houlgate1998.Kojevc 1969: 150 68. LudwiS 1989. l99E and Milbr 1978. Williams 1998,

tu tT H t i

h aaot x 6

U i T H N i tA OII{ G '

fh. dlllecti.

of Ror.on

irlbi lndies of Hegcl s dkcussion of ihe EoliShld'n.nt

sc.

Thc R.$on chaptcr discN!.d in Dudcck is l98lt l2l-t4, Flay t()x,l I 13-61,Hffris 19951 47-60,Hanis 199?: pp.447-62Jand lr. pn l, I 146.Hr?polit1974: 2t9-320,Kainz 1976: 98-t31. Lauer te76 125-76,Lo$coberS 1965:l13-84, Nonnanl98t: 67 85, pi,tlrd 1994: 79-1t4, Roclnor 1997i E(Fll0. Shktar t976: 9Gt.lt. Solomon l98l: .tol Il .nd 48G534,Slewan 2000:t6S 287. For specialist srudies HcSclon rhe issue ideatism Amenh of of se 1991. Srem1990, Wannbrg 1993, K. R. Weslphal and t9E9. for a specialist sludyof rhe .Observing Reason. seciion, Lrnrh se 198098 164. For splialiststudies ltgel's dis.ujsionof physiognomy of und physiology Adon 197l.MactntFe1972a, vonder Lun le81 se and lbr a specialisr srudyof Hegel'sdisussion .lhe spinruat of aninrll kinSdom' Shapiro se 1979. Forspecialist studies ofHgel'scrilique ofKanr'scthics Ament\ see 1987. Hoy 1989. Korsgaard 1996. Lotrenbach Tcnenbaum and 19e5. Sedgwick l98Ea and1988b. Shklart974,Watsh 1969, R. Westphrl K. 1995, Woodl9li9. lgq)i I27 43, and t991. and Th dialectic ot Spirit Th Sl'inr chaprer discussed in Dudcck is futty tglilr lri5 244.Flat 1984i163226.Hnrris 1995:6179. Harris t9e7:tt. pp. t47 520. Hyppolile1974: 32{}5211. Kainz 1983:I toj, Lauett916: lj.1 229. Loewenbcrg 1965: 2E7,Norman 185 l98lr86 104.pinkard t994: ll5 220.Rockmorc 1997: ltt 54. Shklar t976:I42 208.Simpson 1998: 98. Solomon 75 t98l: 514 79. Srewan 2m0: 28El8l. M WeslJrhal 1998b: l2l 86. Forspcialisr studi.sof Hegcl s discussjon of,r,radre sMi s | 986. Pietercil 197E, Steins 1984. and 210

l9?4: lEl 228,Slcm l99la' Pinkard1997,Rosn 198'4,

t997.
Rvolution of diEcutsior lh Frnch of studies Hgel's l988,HFpolit Honnth H!ni$ 197?, 1973, I976.Habrmas smith Scbmidi1998' Rittr1982, Ripstcin1994, Nu.rs.i1998. Wokler1998. and Sutcr19?1. scc ratmentsofthc 'Momlity' sction, Friedman1986 l9?7' and 1981,Jamros1994:82 127'Robinson 1978,Hoy 5r9l. W.stphal|

The diale<ti(ot Religion

l98l: 245-70' Flav fully is chapter discussed in Dudeck Rcli8ion 48. Haris 1995:80 91, Hams 1997:ll pp. 521-707. l: 22? : 529 72. Kainz l9{t3: 12571. Lauer 1976: 230-55. 22l 1994: 6ll Roclmore1997: 292 l5l, Prnkard 1965: Solomonl98l: 5tl0 635. Slewan18+454. lvl Wcslphal 52 1992:221 1872lo. Willia'ns
tFcrsl ' sr rtud' es\ee l )c \): lgdh. De! o\ I q8". .nd 260. Schitndorf19913. Vicillard-Baron)998

Philotophyar dialecti(

l998bi 455 2000: 68. M Weslphal 1983: 41. Slewan 615 253 84 1992: Williams ll lo. txvos 1998De Vos I9t39. se m.cialiststudies Burbidge 199E.Houlgarel99lt. Kojave 1969:l5H8' LudwiS andwilliarns1998 Miller 1978, sdcn1998.

I 84. Flay 1984:249 68, Ilffiis 1995:92 7. ltanis 1"97: ll pp 1974:5?l 606, Kainz l9E3: ll2 E6.Laucr I e76: , H yppol i l e , Lowenberg lq65: 154 71, Rockmore 1997i I79 94'

fullv Knowinsch4tcr rs discussd rn Dudcct lglil: Absolure

It itHti

iaa o|lt6

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.clSround of &. PlE die^olog.tn bc foud in Roonlnnz lt14. (For psnial t|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 Plnon rorqga .nd p.rticuhrly it3 (chlion lo fi. rtst of Hcgcl'r rydlm sd l.t!r tholghl. Morr icccotsludic!in Ccnmn includ. Bckcr1971, 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 in Frsrch !.. Llbo'riar! 1968, and ribanih snd JarEzyt 1987 and 1989.

tr
lbliographY

IT

Ir m
ilil

by H.gel

d fant

fro|n H.gpl's Wrn.t'ook', lr'nsldcd by S Klcin, D. L. Rochnik. andG 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$En rus HEfs Wlsrct.Dt , ia Je\@. S.htifen' neo4. vAasgobe, .di:cd by E. Mold.nhsud ard K M Michcl. 20 vols md ind.x. Fnnt(fun sm M3inl SunrllmF.1969?1, ll, PP 540-6?) nE Ee ir Phenonenobgt, edit.d and tBnshted bv M J D. Pdry. Doldrcchi: Reid.l, lqSl IntMhction: On th' Ttt C.itica! Jout"ol ot PhilNlh. criticism(icneBllv md lrs Flecc of Phild'phical R.lrtiooBhiD to th. P.esr Statc of PhilNphv . hnstalcd by H. s. Hanis in E.tveen Ka,t ond Heeel: T5ts in the Dewlolm.nt of Poe'Kdntiln ld;rirD. t anslstd by G di ciovmni and H s' pP H|tris, Alb|ny: SUNY h!$ 1985. 272 9l' 8.t*eed ncrF- s.nl S.h. iLt's Svst' oI ftt Ul@Q frrrrroprr. t lBlakd bv H s Harr|s trd w C'rf' Alte.y: SUNY Ptss 1977

lfr ilry
ffi$
i*l*l[ii

$xr\t
utNl

{|l{tli1,t

212

211

He$l s Insic: Pan on oftt Ehcr.lopedid ofthe Ph oephicat Scie".t,. tubtcd by W. Walh... 3rd cdn, Oxford: Oxford Univcrsny prcs. 1975. Hq.l s Philotoph! of Noruft l?.^ Tvo of rbc En rclq.dia oJ th. phik, tophical S.ierces),cdirdrdtrnsl cd by M. J. Pclry,3 vol!, c.orrc AUa & Un*1n: Lrndon, 1970. H.g.l\ Prilorophf of Miid: Pan Itwe ol thc Eklctopedio of the phito roplri.r, Sc,.rdr. lr|rlbrcd by W Wdlsc. |nd A. V Mitt.r, Orford OxfordUniv.Bity Pr!$, t9?1. Ea ! Thalogtcal n4itirys, nlndarcd by T. M. Xnox. ChicsgorUnivcait\ 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. Btmmington Indie Urivcrsary P|K, t984. In,rodvtior to h. L.cturc.son the Histor of phikts.,phr.rr-.slrtcd by l M. Kndx 3rd A. V Millcr, Oxford:Orford Unive6iwprcss.t9E5 Lc(tutes on thc Phtlotophy ,ro d Histot hhodu,tron R.d\on n' "1 Hirlory, iEnshcd by H. B. Nisbcr.Cmb.id8.: Crmbrids. Univ.Bnt Pr.s. 1975. Jen@r SJste4e.teii|e l: Dts Srsten .let speetatiwn philotuphie, edit <l by K. DiisinS H. Kimnctlc, HambuS:reli,( lnd Mciner V.rlag. t986: hnslat d in sEL (s bctow)_ Jenoet S$ten nteii4e : LoAit Mektphlsit. Natu,phitotuphie,cdited b\ R-P Ho6tmnr. HamburS: FclixMcincrvcrtag. l9E2;panialtyrEns lst d in TheJena S$ten, /E0, /8alj. ranslsted by L W Burbidge md 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:FclixMeincrVrla8, l9E7iI)aL tially mnthcd m lks./z,d h. Hunaa Spnit,t Trotndtu,n th. ot Jcid Lt.tu,.x o" th! Itttu,.lp,ir ldo5 6. rr.nstaredby L. Rauch, D.troit: Wayne Slac Un'versiry Press. l9El tlepal: A.sthati(!:Lcdttet oi foe,{r, iranslared T M. Xrox, 2 voh. by Oiford: oxfo.d Univc6nyPEss,t9?5. Lat ret oa ttu lti oa ofphl/.r'opr'. rtanslared t s l|!ldu. and F. H by Srmson.I !ols. Londo.: K. Parl. TrcNh. Trnbner.llt92 lE96i rcpnnt.dLo.don:Univ.rsiry ofNcbhsftaprcs. 1995. latups oa the PhilosophroIRetAior. tBnstaldbr E. B. SpciN and, B. SandeMn.Ncw Yolk: Humrnnies P6s. l%2. 2 t4

urd Aphonsm.nlAlFlaSl',

in B. i^er SchrnenIEIE-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. tts: The Sciennlc lvdlt of7l$tiry Nan/tu|b|',lts PIoc.la Monl Philosoph!, dn l t Re/,'tionto the PositiveS.lencet of lav' r,a' hi.d by T' M- Knor PcrBylvsnir: UniwGitv of Ptrsylvrnia PF$' t915. Phltdopht o! History,ldartrjaledby J SibG Ncw Yo.k Dov.r' 1956 of thePhilosophyoI Right. cdiLd by A. W wood ranshtd bv H. B. Nisbcl, Ctmb.idgc: Cebddgc Univcrsity P|s, l99l o/ $pi.rir. ltusl.Ed by A. V Milld, Oxfod: Ortord Uriv.Eny Pr.$. 1977. rrno$. cditedby L. Dickey and H B. Nisb.t. tnnddcd bv H B Nisb4 CMb.idsc: CmbridS. UniEBity tt$. | 999 l?,,to, is H9ton: A G.nMl lrno.lucion to the Philosophr of Histon' BobbsMorill, 1953. by translarcd R. S Hmman, lndisMPolisr lo of sccpticism Phildophv" tr&n|latd bv H S. Hmis Th Rchtionship 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: 1985. lll 62 SUNY Prcss. rtn. ol o.fEthicol Lik llll0:/3)dnd l;irst PhilosoPht spi/ (Pdrt Iol Ststen the Svstenof Spellative Philo('Phr lE0J/4). .dited nd ntnslal.d by H. S. Haris and T M Kno& Alb.ny: SUNY Prcs. le79' Atlcn& Unwin by S.i.r. s ol rdsk , lEnslatcd A v Millcr' London:(idn8e

ln fic css of lhosc eorl.

lhlt ,nctud. marcrial frcm $u.lent nolcs.

a bv thrs norcs. is indicatcd addinS Z to ro txt rcfded is lakcnfrom rhcsc comes (e s lll.: ll58Z) ln cass *b.r. a Fretcnce thc pr.!8raphnrmber bv ofthc str,c tcri.lhis is indicatcd punrtg transhln,tr\ dilTcrcnr frw l*o rhc lc .'/ btseen refcrenccs I ILPWllr l9 RHr lll The followingworls by Kantlrc cncdin thir volude: m! Oitique of lru.ti.ol Rtun)n The Gitique oJPrre Redson Gtuun.lhotk ol the MetaPhr '\ .1 tltrdk lvhat ReqlPr.'gressHds MltuPhr'lit! Mdl.' In cemat! kibniz and wt'W

Sin e the nne ol

215

Rfcracc! !rc givcn ro fic volumc lnd p.r. rumb.r of lh. artin Acadenr\ Edition of K|||f! wriritrt! (vhich c.n bc found in rlE n rSini of mo3tr.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 (farl lnd B (3.trd) cdition!.

frod Kdnl . F. C. (198?). Ihe Fate of Realrn: G.tu^ PhilosoPhv to Ficltr, Crnbritg., Mass.md tddon: ttlwud Univcnitv Prcss. to H.gel, c'rnbndg.: coipoaia (.d.) (1991), ?L Canffise C{rbridg. Uliv.tlity Ptrls. in, J. M. (19E4).'Frott Sclf-Coo!.ioustr65 to Comuniy: Acl ttd Rcognition in th. Md.r-Slavc Rclttionship'. in P.lczvNli (.d.)

(Xh.r rvoiks
Acron,H. B. (1971),'Hcg.l s CoDcrFionof rh. Srudy Hulno Natur. . of in notal Instituteof Philosoph!Lectures,yol 4: 1969-20:Theproll ,tr/r// (Bri8hton: HarvestdPress), 12.4?i r.prinrcdin lnwood(ed ) ( 19E 5)ll7 5 2 . : Adel'M, H. (19E0).'OfHMm Bondsg.:Labos, Bond.Ng., F@don, ad in the Phenonetulo&.', v.rcrc (.d.) (t9EO):tt9 15: reprinr..l in m O'N.ill (.d.) (1996): l7l 86i snd i. Stwan (ed.) (1998). t 55- 71. (f964), Hcgels Phenoneaolog,': Flcing the prcfrcc , .t/eatrtl Studies,l4:l59 lO. Adom, T. W. ll911), Negatite DiolecrKs. r6ns. E. B. Ashron, Lndon Rourtcdgc. Ameriks, ( l9E7).'The Hcgclian K. Cririqu. of Kntian MoBlity., iD B. d.n Oud.n lnd M. Moucn(.ds) (t987): rprinl.din his (2000) ra4, dr,/ the Fdte of ,|utqon\ Cdbridgc: CrmkidSc Univc6ity prcrs 109 37. {1991). HcSeled ldcalisn, Ire Mo"ixr 74: 386 {02: Eprinredn srcm (ed.)(l99lc). l : 522 37. ' (2000s), Int.oduction: hierpretinS(ime ldealism ir Amerit\ , (ed.l(20(rcb): 17. | (ed.) (200ob). The (ahbridse Conryrbn to ccrnan tdeotnu. (-obndge ( ambndg.UnrteB,ryPcsr Austin. J L. {1962), Seny lnl Sensibiliu, Oxford: Oxlbrd Univcrsr\ Blxtcr. D. ( 19196). Bndlcy on Subsranriv. Adjeciive: dd Tte Comple\. Unny Probl.n . in Ma.d.r {ed.)(tqDi). | 2:t. Bect, L W (1976t. The Rcfomarion. Rcloturio.,andrhc RcsroEtidl rhe ir Hcgcl\ PoliricalPhilosph y , Journal of the Histon ol philosopht. l4: 51{ 1. Bccker.W ( I97l). teset PhinoneMtosie .le! Ceistes Eine Interr.tdtion. sun$n: Kohlhdli.r.

(l9tt): l4-le.
B. (1984). BEdl.y d

ir Mrn|.r |nd slocl (.ds)

l 09r4),2r 26.

A. (lY)tl, Schellingd.l Moden Ewopeot Phil$ophr, lanfl/Jn Rootlcdgc. , F. lt. (lgJ't, ,lryeorun e ard ieoliry, nmth imprcssion(conclcd) Orfod: Orford UniwFity PGs. J. w. (197E), ''Unn ppy Con3cioB*$'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 192 209. Stcwan(ed.)(199E): ( | 99E). Absfurc AcrinS', rh e Qwl oI Minveflo. 30: loi tB I.lrgall, Do6te nA .les eftclcinenden tristeas: ,s,lmtivie Elrleiltng tu HesetsPhArcd.tdba,e /.s Gersrcr.Bdnn: Bdvi'r' 1\ n. Min.t of Gottanl the worksof Man. oxfo.n Ort6n E. L(t B. (l9r'), ,l\at is Liing ard Whatn Dead ttu' D Ainslie.London MacDillan IteSst, (1941).lnrt,4 dl ,r? 5t,^ d,'fuh".n. rhns s. spriSgc.London: Allcn & Unwin Ccorge M. t dar Oud.;. B. anijMouen. (eds) I 98?),lr'e$tlr4rr,t Karr' NewYork| _ enainry lndUtivcMhv: Il.SelsEnrntce D! Nys.M. r. (l97li). scnsc_( antorhc Phenonn'aol.t!4:.ln^rndtr'ndl Phtl.t.Phnal Quo th la: 445 65i rcp ntcdIn stem (cd I I l(})lc). lll l08 10 Th. Unity of rhe Obist or (19E2). forcc and UndcrsundinE: in consciousneFi. wcslph.l (cd )(1982) 5? ?0. of {1986), M.di.rbn and NcSdlllrty in Hcgels Phenomcndlogv . Consciousn.ss , )urndl Dl Religio'. 66: 46 57 i ftpnntcd in Ch.isti& 2:r sr.wan (ed.)(199,1).401 Da..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

zt5

211

artUoGtarrrY D. Vo., L (1969),Aboll! Kmwingir {E prari.rdtos,', (c4) (19t9): 8l-m.

D.!o.,

in Wyl
in

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 Ldttncc ||ld Kiowtcdgc.. ./o!rr./ A. Ehwy of Phtlotoplty, 297-507 26: .
(l9t8b), H.gcl's n@ry of ltdt4t lcttvtty, ftLqt tA Co([cll UDivwity Pr!!!. (f 991).'Tt DirLclic o|T.l.r,logy., ptitarqhi.at Topics.19:51 Doioogho. M. (19t9), 'ntc worll|tr in \rtir.: On lc Rc.r.id of lr. Anneov' , IL. N of Mi"eM, 2l: 6A9. -

lJt r- (l9t!)t Sitnicc-@ of [6!if..r Midon Ptu',ct &s', i[Wltffi (.d) 0tlgl t9r-219.

I Z ( lt't6), Hypocri.y|nd tb. Hirb.|t (bodi Hc8.l on xxli dtlon nm Mqdity io n.[gi6. Jos'io, ol ,t Hht'rv oI 21:5Ot-22.

tu:Pt'{ti0' e,;J6nXl|'t e,a$nu.,ye'd tt. tat M@at b , (l9{,Sr, Mhn .tB EtrLi,,,rytn H.stb vttet'l.hal
m.

Lfit, F mktur: Klo.$t

'Ztr L.Sik d.r Pi'lnodnologie vG l8O1', H.a.LS1I/dEn, 31 7!l0li t!p.i cd in Fuld..d Hc'ri.h (d!) (1973): Hcnrich. D. (.d.) (t9731, Mawiol6 z! H.g.ts

PhilotopheB: FtM Desca q ro rvier,rct. Orfrd: Bhct*ctl Findliy, J. N. (r9'8l, H.sel: ,t R.exantnatton, Londo!: Altcn -

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 H8cl R.fcr to prnicuh$?'. rt. oel o/ 17:lEt 94: Eprinr.d sGern (.d.)0998):t0!21. in 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:lEnumrucf, S. M. (.d.) eml), The Bhctwett Gtme b th.

d wo.ld"'. i! hit tLatl\ Dia"cltti HC. t tc'tbl B.8ptt r*.lt i@ P cltniqhc! Smith' Ncw Hlttn . H.r,wtuncal sn//kt, YrlG Urivct ity Pra!" l!51; EptiDi.d in Sl.m (dJ l.d&!:

&r C.itr6', F tfun: Sub*tm9.

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: on G.dan Phil6oPh!, Cambridgc: C.tnbridgc UDvc|lirv

In.l3l-{?. 'Hcrcl s Didcctic of s.lf-Cor$iouncle'. i^ his Heset ' Suaio. t!!tu. P Chnltopb.. smilh' , ri. A*"^uri*t

(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 t n.nloAie .les GeitEs. Ftu'*.ftn: Ktosr.m.nn. Ff.y. J. c. (1970),'Hcgl'i"lrve.redwortd . teyi# d/ Metopht\, 1,21 652 7Ei cp.ini.d in Srcm(.d.) (1993c): , I48 {l; and in sr.*a I (cd.)(1998):llE 54.

(l9U\. Hegelt Qult F,/ Ceza,rt. Atbuy: Suttry prcs. (1996),'Absoluc Knowing frc Abloturc dd Ottd., rr. (r/ MireM.lO:69-82.

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. catnbndsc: lzf{[l, Kait on rtecdod Loa dnl /rdPPnetr. Unrv.rsnt Pns ,odrc i . ti crrr, H egctstnrrqucuf t h< f r cn( h Rlolut pn. r n hi{ dnl Pru.ti.e. tmns. ,ohn vicnel Boston: Acacon rtts3. t,L.0929\. 'Di. Hesel: SeiaWo a u.t SeinWefi2.L.iPzi9:Tucbn.i' EffLhun$8.$hicht. d.t Phlnomctologie in B

7t-

5.

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 i ro8lcr, 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 tlosophyof Fre.don, N.* Hav., lnd r.on|l(r Yrlc UnivcBitv Prcs!.

I rtmr (.d.)(1934)rl&lE ne fl.srl1' So.tulPhilotuPhr: Prcjecto! Recon' M. O. (1994).

C|nbridsc: cmbridsc Univc..ily Prc!6

ir

z1 a

2t9

II' IIOGi A P H Y

H. S. 1t972)\ Hescrr D.Elopnant l: tMr.t the $,ht h! ( I 77u I Eot). oxrdd: Oxfotd Urivdity Prcas. (1977). HcSclsnd fi! F'!mb Rclolutid . clio, ?: 5-18. .'-..'_ (f9E3). fla8"ll D.'.lory.nt Il: Nltht Thdghtt (Jena t60t 6). Orfordr oJddd Urivd.iry Prcs. (1991),'H.r.l\ Intcu..tu.l Dcv.lopmc'f, in Bcis (d.) (|eet) 25-5t. ll.n5), HeSel: Pte@n @log and Sys,!6,tndi.napoti6: Hsct.n. (997r, HeAels Ladde4 2 \o13.Indi.narblis: H&lcn. H!yn. R. ( | E57),lt Sd lrr' reiM Zat. Bdlin: Ru&tlf c&nncr: rcDrintcd D.rmsradt: wisrl$bnlich. AuchS.slkchn, 1962. Hcidqt3o. M. ( | 970),fteser's Con.eptof &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), nelio, 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, P (1984), L. tdael t (: tiqk oJthe Ettiahtqr.rr. CaiDesvi c University Press Flonda. of Honnoth, ( I 98E),Atomism Erhical A. lnd Life: Or Hegel\ (liriquc of ihc FrcDchR.hludon , Prrlor.rp, v ond S..ial C|itithn. t4: 359 4a. tl995l, Th?Strusslalol Rt\\tgnitioa: TheMotut Grunno of S.xiat Conlthr. 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 teeelt | /til.^1,/,rl London:RolrlcdSc (1998). Abefrre Knos.inSRcvisnc{. The /;l.tl ot tttin.^!.311 5r 6ti. ( 2m l) , C. W F . H e g e.l i n tmma .u e l (e d .)(2 (xl l2?8 105 ): Hoy,D. C. {l9lit), 'Hcgel\ Monls , DroioSr?.20: t02. 8,r (I969), Hegel's Cririquc K^ntian of Moatfiy' , H d l,hihMrhr ^hn Quutte \ 6:207 32. ffumc,D. ( l97E),,r ?}.ari? t, Hundn Naturc,2nd.nn. by l_ A Setb), cd. ai88c and n t] Niddnch. Orford: Oxford Unive6iry prcs. Hyulolirc,J. ( 19169), Si8nificancc Thc ofrhe Fench R.votution ltcgct\ in Phetun.nolos" , a^li Sru.li.s on Ma^ atu! H?sel, nans.L O'N.itt. London: Heinmm. l5 69.

tfnti!.

'Pt^onenoloAt d Spint . ll974l, Gensis @.t s,tuc/'ur. d ttea.l's J H.ctlM, Evuston: Ndlhwd.m Univ'r S. C'tmi.l lrd 'tni.

ne8.1,t don: Rourlcds. M. (19E3),

(1992),,4 Hegel Dicrionary,Oxfordr Blactw.ll. (d.) (19E5).,te8el, o'.fordr Oxford Utivditv P.!$ t W.\l.t..]'),A Pttttol|tti.Uniw&, London: ngr

'Crc.n'&Co'

'PherM.^olo8, of SPirit , N* Yorl: ParagonHlle J.bb. R- C. ( fq{2), 'lntroduction' , Th. Antisoneof5ophdlr' 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?rC?6l.r. Frlnktun: Klost.|mnn. and fuinz. H. P (1976). HeAch Ph4oh.norrg) Pd l: '4nalvsis Tu$tlo.sa: Univcrsitv of Alabaro Prc$i rcpn'ted Cott.trary. AttEns. OH: Ohio UnivcNityPt s. 1988 ......_ (lgEl). H.aert Pheaodenokt& Pdr, /,. Ath'ns. OH: Ohio UnivcBiryFtEss. Te s a^'l (\'nde^tory' yfrufmsnn, W 11965\.H.aet: Rci\krPtuun'" weidnftldand Nicol$n Ldndon: in led (1,)7t). H egel sl dcasl tnut Tr uScdy. sr einkr uus ) ( 1971) l 201 20. and Kclly, O. A. (1965).NotcsunHcScls Lordshin BondaSc. f,(f4" o/ 19:7&t 80:i rcPrinl.d in his (lr)?lt) l(rf'?r /ion Metophr'ltcs. Prin'don tlnile6jtv Ekb'l stwli.\ in lilnit tl lldi'(rt- Princcion: ?51 72:lnd r n Sl. m ( cr l) i n () :\.rl l l . d I l1996l. P B s.29 54:and (l 99l c)rl l l . l 6l ?9:rnd rn si c$. n lcd ) ( lq98l l71 9l Kimmcrlc. C ll9?8). n1, uin ,lh\t I n,ltiu.hwe :r/ kdhtoriut'n (ntu nt lltgth I'h'i'r)nrnnk)8it' ltn tlt u Ei"htit v 'ks (n,iv.{. Bonn,Bou!'cr Kojdvc.A (1969),Iat ltutn'n n' th. R.dlin:!,/ //.!'/. lbndscd.lBns' Ncw Yorkrllrr. &n)ks J. ll. Nichols, Korisrtnj. ( M. (1996), Kunr'\ I('mula of ihc l rnivcrs'l Li* in her Unile6riv Cambridgc <r.dtiit! thr liinsl.n ,/ tt./r, ( ambndSer Philosophkdl Quorrth 1985' R$i ?7 105 rp.inrcd trom Pd.if. la Dtulcctiqu' tatEritrc. P-J (f968). !'d,irt,ra 'lons Ph[\oniroloqn n. l r:\rit /. lL'A.l Paris: Arbicr

220

221

B IS LIOGR A P } IY

LrbaniaE. P-J. ald J.rczyk, G. lt9a7\ HeE t: Les preniers .o^h^ lt( la reconnatusaacenoibtte et snitude dans td phtnon.nolqr de 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 Witrgcnstin Lmgurye and SensL, on ccnlinry . c/@.?:285 30t. llga0t Hccel: Fhn Four.lat r, r, tNr.r. rhc Haguc Nijhoff L^n t,Q. t. (1976),,1Reo.ling H.&efs phe,onlnoh,gt. a/.tp,z?..N$ { Yo*: Fo.dham Univ6iry ftcs. Lockc.J. ( I975),,.1, frra] Con..rninsItunan Ljatetstdtut .d. by p rl irs. Nidditch, Oxford: OxfordUnilcmiiy press Le*enber8. J. (f965).H.sels Ph.honeaolog|:Diotos,kson th. Lift,rl M,ad La S.llc, ll.:OpcnCoun. Loiicnbach. ed Tcnenbaun, (1995)..lteg.t\ (iiriquc of Klnl in rh. H. s. ?hilosopht ofRish!'.KuntStu.tiq.a6:21| ]0. t.iiqith. K. (li)71), Mediarionand Imnedi(y in Hes.t. Mn rnd F euc dac h. S re i h k Bu s (e d 9 7 tt: 9 ,l l in )(l LudwiS. D. (1989). l tcgct\ Con.cprion Abs,tut. Xrosin8., rrd al, / W of tl lVineNu,2lt 5 19. (;.I1975), r?f Llra t/.!./, trlns. R. Lilinssronc, Lukdcs. London Merlin LuDsdcn. S. (1998). AbsolurcKnos'ng _ nn. ()nt d yin.n-u. ttl Lunrcrcn. ton{le9t). Eishtecnrh-( F. .ntury( i)tucpr n,ns ( irut nution.. oi n Pciry(ed.)I1993r:t.l] 15f,. Nt.(;inn.( ( l99lf. /,,D/,/.1A I'h t&ft.r: tht I nt^ t,t /,4rn. ()rtird rt lJlacl$ell. Ml ehr y r c ,A ( l9l: r ). tl c g c to f ti e $ .n d S tr s .. ri l \tnctl rryrc I (ed ( I 972b)219 .1 f'l:c tri n trd S re w d (e d .t t9 9 8t ) | I 1.1 : Ir n I (cd.l (f9r2b). lt.Ett: A (blh\.tioh o/ (i,fudl t$/rr. Nc{ yorr: An.hu' &$1, Nt.ndc.. J. (ed.,(lqr6). /'o\t\\r\.t.n \1. ftc t!!k antl t(ldrhrr(s ot t prcss tl qtut!!.t, tsrlrot: thocmnrls Manscr. and Strrk. C tcds)lt9al\ The phih^Dth.r t A. ol . Brudl.t. Oxird: OxlbrdUnivc6iryprcss Mrrcus. H (1955)./i,z!,, otuI Retr'tuuod: .tlft drd th. Ris. n[:t .iot l'rada..:nd cdn.London: R,url.dse& K.gan paul

E. Avclingad S. Mo$rc,N.w K. (l$5). CoPl,al. volumc York: 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. Ns Yo*: HnFr ed l|.n. ......_ tf986,).D^r se/r'trD.usstvin in HegekPhatunerologie d.s Geitt6' Fntrktun: Klo3tcmant. ofthe Absluie StudPointin HcSel\ Millcr. M. H. (19?El.Thc Attsinmcnt (;tu lu,e f'@ltt Phildophr Joural.lt 195 zl9: Phenonenok't1t'. rqtrinred in St.*.fl (ed.) ( l9r9t): 427'41. Milb. P.J. (t9li6). H.8el s,{friAdr. . Th. Oel t, Mi\etu. 17: l3l 52 in rcprinrcd 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. UnivcRilyPres inVesc}( . d) {t 972) : Unde6llndr nS. H D Munay, . { 1972}. cgct:rorccand 163 71. NsSel.l ( l9E6).Ird ri.'s th)t.\',itrrcru. Oxf(rd ()xfordUnilcrsitvPrcss in Nohouser.F. {l9lt6l. ttducins D.sirc lnd Rccognnion $e Phenoh"nolor. rl stint . Jou dlol th! thstortolPh t^ophr.24:24142. l-r.etlon. tutiddti'ns ol lkr.l \ so.iul Th!o\: ALtrdli.iata |2OOU, Pr.s Mas. and l.ondon llarv!.d Univcrsilv Canbridgc. Ncu$r. $. (1991). lhc (i,n.cpt of lorcc in EiShtccnlh'Ccnffv MechanicsIn I'clry (il | ( l9erlr .llil 9rl . $ Kruftnrntr.Nc* Yort: Nier{he. t tlt)lll. fr. (,in .\irtrr.ldn! RandonHousc ht N oml n,R .(1981)./l r(./l fl ' hai nm oh'x\ '1 l'lt ilt ^q, hnu| t \ l, f t or . srsse\:l l !^csr$ l tc\s \lttulh i, tha Nondn. R. E tl\t95r, fhr Brrrttlnl Snrl l\thrltt t l ,grkr,/l (,n/rrt.l l hrc.r.nxtI ondon( or ncllUni\ . r \ , ly r css N oztck, (l 9tt1).Irrl ,\,4,hrtl l \lr lot t t r , ^ t ) r l: \ t t JO r lbd t l! 'ivcn't y R Nussbrrm.M r1986).lhr linttltt\ nl r;\\hn'\\' I rmbild8(r ( ambnd8 t-hr\c6,ry lt($ Nus*r. X i I 99lt 'l hc | rcoehRc\olulbr and I l.8.l s Ph.no,t.rolDsrol l. 282 106. liJtil . lran\ J Slcsrn In Slc*dn (ed ) ( 1998): ONeill. J (cd.) (leerr). //ttr/:r lrdl.dn d 1,.\ir. rn.l Ra(Dqnition. Albany:SLINYlrc\\ (ambnds'l PclczyNkf.z. A. fcd ) I le?l). llt'E l s PDhtttulI'hilos)Pht. I intrcairy PG\s CambndS.

222

223

A IB LIOGhA P IIY

....._ (cd ) (1984), rhe Stdte oad C/vii .teiery. Crmbridgc: CrmbridAe Univc6ity 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. 2A9-3lOPinlq4 T. (l9Eg), Hegls Diolectic. The l:tplohotio, ol p6sibitt^. Philadclphia:Tcmpl. Univcsity Prcss. (19 ), Hegel ! Phenodenologr'': The :i(iulitr of Reann, Can bridg: Camblidg. Univrsity Prcss. (1997). Ronandczcd Enlidtlnment? Enlishrcncd Rmlnriciln' Un'v.Nlism and Psrticuleis in Hcg.l s Undc6hndingof rhc Enlubt n'ffit . Bu etin oI the Hesel :*x.i4. ol <jred Anrai^, It l8 18. (1999), Hisroryand Philospny| Hcgcl'! Pheaonenoto& Spi t't (e in Clc ndiDn i rs d)(1 9 9 9 ),5 7 8 . 6 eoma), Hesel: A Eiosrophr, CambnlA.: Csmbndge Univchi[ ' (2000b). Heg.l s Ph.nohe"ok's,- and l?,ar.: An Ovcn,ie* . nr Ameriks(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 ThcrcrTBnsition pmblcms!l H.Eels Phenonladb&toISpi.ir'. itr Bciscf(ed.)(t991): 52 85. PiiSScler, ( I 96| ). Zur lhutun8derPhiinomcnobSie ( ietsrcs li,ll./ o des , Srudi.n,tt 255 9.1: rop.inrcd PiieScter in 119?lr:l70 2lr) (1966). Die K'mlr,irn,ndcr Phiinomcnon,sr d5Ceisrej. in t/..*r./ .t!r',.r. aeihen l: 2? 74: reprinrcdin Fllda and Hcnrich(cdsl 1I). ( 197- t ) : 129 '- fleTl), /tB,/r llk,rir.t Phaanom."ilorn, (lrJ?.r. lrciblr8 dj M unic h: K ! . l A l b c r R.uch. L and Shcinan. D (1999). lht1.l.\ I'htuhnadot<r .l S. ( rn1.tohr.$. Alblny: SUNY Prcss. RcddrnS. (r996). ll.E.l x ll.rrkn.utn\, lrhacadnd London:(ome[ P Unive6nyftEs\. R,lcy.P (1995). Rousrsus (ieneBl will: FEtdomofa panicutar Xrnd . wollq ( ed .) r9 5 ,: 2 8 . I ttq 'n Rrpsrcin, ( 19914), A. Unilc$al and ceneial wr s: Heseland Rouss{au, h'hi. ol Theon. 22: 444 67. Rftcr, !.ll982l. HeEelanl! the ften.h Rcwlrtu'n.lf;ans. D. Winfietd. R. ('amb.id8e. Mas. andLondo.:MIT P.crs.

tobctu, J. ( I9S8), C4ta,

P, ilonPhr: '1. lntrcdu.tion, CanbridS.: Polity

.tJ tobiruon. ,- (19?7), DuN add Hvryrifl i. Hegel's PhdMlogz 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$i! P|6 (1.t97). Coeaind: An lntodtction to Hqel s Pheaoderolory oI Splrir'.B*clcy: UnivcBilyof califomiaPr!3s. Xs'o,S (1974),G. lY.F. Hegel: 4n Intrc.l6tiD to the S.ie.ce of Wis.lon. N.e Hrve.: Ysl. UnivcBily ft!$ K. (lE{4l. Geda Wlhela Frie.lti.h Hq.Lt L.be.. B.ltin: l*ntr!n:. Buch' D|ln ld and Humblol: Eprintcd Damstsdt: wi.e$h.filichc gc$ll$han. 1963. P.nslin ftil". n ns A. Bl@m.London: Rous.u..l-J. (1991), (lsg4r me So.iul (Intd.t, tans ( 8ens, Oxford: Oxford -Univcsity Pre$. 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. of Spitir', Hcs.l'sttulien 12: t29 561 Pr.f!c. ro th. Pr.,,t.r./.,sr and Ph.non.noloP'r th. Endol lcmnredin his{l9ri6r Ddi' itotions: Indran! Unilesilv Prcs. and Bl@FinSlon Indranrpolis: Metdprrsi.r. (19 25 4(M2: md i n S rcw .n(ed.) E8) : 51. (1958).adi,s rr../ ,v,rrt,8,rir. traN. stnrc. !P on R. Schachr. (1972). A ( i)mn,cnrary thc l'rci-a(cto lleaels Pr.ro_ in n.nxlosl:. PhnN't'h"I st/.ri r lr I lli rcnnnted his (19751 HeEtant!Al,.t: shkln\ n(i,n n.tull I'hno''t'ht 8.tr.an runtun.! (h!v.r$ty ol Pittsbu.lh l'tuss.'ll 6'l .sdrr.. PnlsburSh: ( -A. (l9li0). /r.l !t\ho turnn^thtr rt lh11!l\I'hnnod.nnlt)Ck Scheicr, ,/tr (t.^r6, tBihclr/Munieh:Alber S.hill.r. f (r96?). trn tlv 4.\thttl. ,:hLutr'n t'l Mun. t^ns. v' M oxturd: ()xlbrd UnivdnY |}css. wilkin$n a L A wrlh)ushby. (abbr8. llc&l' and (iulps of walcr: H.ael on ih< J. Schtnidt, (199E). rcftoi . Politual Th@^.26: 4 \2 (tlhcr, and Reoncilirrion Schitndof.I{. {1998). Th. (thenn8 {BetominS ol of Cod in H.8cl\ I'h?nontnol,]r]t sqrit . t.ans., Ste*an. In Slc*.rl (ed.)(l99lt): l?5 400 A. Schop.nhau.r, (1965).(ra th. Bdrisol Morotit!, ttrsnsE f l Pavne. BobbsMcnll. lndiaMlDlisr

224

225

sr Btl o 6 i a Pl l Y

S.dgwick, ( I 98E!),'Hgcl\ Cndqucof th. Subj.ctivc S. ld.rlisrhof Ka.t s Erhica',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"tt Phenoaerclosiel 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 8 l2l l8: rlprint.d io SGwan(cd.)(1998):225 19. Shtfa.. J. N. (1974). TL Ple@neaoloAr A.yon<lMorality, r/Aral, Philotophitdl Qtanetlv.2Tt 591-621i Nprinrcd in Slcm (.d.r ( 1993c ) r 1 6 9 -2 1 9 . lV bl 11916),treedon dn.l ltuiep?nden&: A Stu.l.r tha Pnnkdl ld.as ol ll.Eel\ 'Ph.no6eaolo&toJMird , 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 PhAaonetuloEiedes G.ist.s. Ein eirluhreder K'nnert r zt H.Eels Dillercazt.hnt! u"d Phnrone,olosie d.\ o"irr.r ', Fmnttun: Suh*amp. Simpen. P ( 1998t.,r.ar lr ?oa.erderral /ri.t!.llr,. Alb.nyr SUNY Prcs Singer. (1981), P d.al Oxford:Orford Univ.Biry Pr.si. sm'th, S. B. (1989). He8elmd thc french R.roluiion: An Epiraphfor Rcpublicanism .li,(,al {Aeain. 56: 2ll 61. Soll,l. (1969)..4a latroduction Heget Mctuphvsit!, hicago: to s < Chicago UnilcAiiy Prcs. (|976). ( harles raylo. s tea.l .Jorrnald Philt'y!'hr,1\ 691 1lol rep.imcd InwNd (ed.)(l9lt5,:5:ki6. in solomon. (. ( lgnl). /r,re spi,it of He84,1 shth .l (; t t HeEel R. t 'Ph(nonnru,lo(t spirit .Oxfo.d: Oxfordthi\crnrr/ Prc\s. ol I l!vtl|, llcScl\ Pr.,o,,s,o/,sr o/ li,r4r'. In solonon and HiSahs ( eds ( l9r 9lr :l 6 l 2 1 5 ) solomn. R. (-. .nd HigSms, M. teds) ( le,).tc).th. lxt ot Gcmn K. l./r!/ira (RoutlcdgcHistory of Philo$phy vol. vtr. London: Routlddge. Sleincr.(i (l9tl4).,.lrriraor.r.Orford: oilbrd Univcsity Pr.ss. 19-42: rcprintcd Steh (ed.){ 1993c): I8l!99. in Ill, SrcinknusWE.(cd.)(1971),Nev Studies ltesal s l)hilt)r?ry,NepYorkj ih llolt. Rinhan& Winslon. 226

$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$!ndin8'. Phil6oPtv' 6a: t93 209. ( 199E).(i. W F. He8el" i! Tcichn.nandwhitc(cds)(1998).lE 17. Oi (1999). Going Byondrh Kmtian Philosophv: McDowell's F'urop.da Joumal of PhilosoPhr' 7: HcSctidn Cdtique of Ktit, 241 69. \zt{$. 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 77 Stryan (.d.) (19198).444 from Example Ne8ation:An (1996), Hcsctt D@lnneof Dcteminalc _Pcrccption . /.r.z/irrn stdi'r 26: 5? 7E ''S.ns-C.nai.ly and '-.- (2000).Z'. Lt tl ol lhc.l\'Phtnnm.nok't1\ d S/'!t/, Evansronl Unile.sily ftcss Nonh*cstem (ed ) ( I 99tl Zr 'Ph.hn.aobt<t ,/ liD,/,/ N.?.'l'l. Albanv:sUNY ). P sti l l man. (i . (ed| (198?).l h' sl \ l'hih^ot 'ht . / t , t , . Albm v:SUNY

sur$. J-r'.(1971).Burkc.llesel.i|)(l thc frcnch Rcvolulion inPclc4nksl (cd.l{ 197l ): 12 J2

T!yfr)r. ( (t97lr. The (hctrrng Ar8uDcrlr ol th. I'hdon'nd1r<rM a . l n t y r c( e d . ,( l t ) 7 : b l : 1 5 7 8 7

( tl975l. H.I canrbfldse( rn,hnd8L trncsrrv Prc$ (i (.d\l ll99a\ ln lntn,luti'n to Mulem Tcichmu. J and Whnc. t.wr@n Phitt^olh\' 2 cdn.lliun(hnlsr Mrcn'llan ()rford: Oxfod Univch'tv V!lb.fs, L J. ll9e2). ft. P,,::l'dl lvr,'tnl. A rnd RcprcsentationrCritiqucof Ohlcer. Valght. (. (i {19E6).Sublcel. Dialectic of Perccfln)n, ln|l'mItional Philoto?hitdl Hcgels 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,ttrdon l4tmrn. Vicillrrd-Bsm, ,-L. ( 198), 'Ndunl R.ligionr An Invdngrlid of HcSct { Pheaonenolog Spnit,tEns. .,. Srewan. Srcwan of (d.)(199t) in 35t 74. von dcr Luft, E. ( | 9E7),'TlE Binh of Spirit for Hc8.t our of rhc Iilvcsty ot Mcdicift , 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. R Nonhcyin St.m (ed.)(l99lc): ll.2E,r ll0 walsh,W H. ( | 969),,/selia, t/t!.r, London: Macmillsn. Wanenbc.S.T' (1993). Hcgel\ ldcslism: E. The Logicof Conceptualiry . n B.arcr(cd.)(1993):102-29. w6rphtf, K. R. (f9E9), Itda"l s Epistenotogi@t R.nt6n: ,t Snldvol !h. ,lin and Mettod of H.Bel ! Phe,o^eiolo&1 of Spint . t\ndrc.ht: (l99l). HcSch Cririque Kanr MoralWorldVi.w , prrlddpl'i.a/ of \ T opk s . 19. 11 6 . 17 ' (1991.), Hcg.l. Idslim, md Robcn Pippin',Interutionol phitosophrcatQ@ e.tu. J}t 263-72 (l99lb). The Basic Cbnrcxt and Srrucrurc Hc8t Prr'loroprr..,/ df s farr'. in Bds (ed.)(1991)1 59. 214 (1s95), How'Full u Kant\ ( aregoncal lmtcarile? , ,falt,6!., /ni Re.htund Ethiv.4nnual Ret'i.r d Lo\| aad Ethk:,l: 465 509. (1998a1,tlcgcled Hunc dn Pcrccption (bnccpl-tmpidcism. and Joumul.tl theHish^ ot l,htlo ph.t,1l:99 t2t. (1998b),llc8cl s Solurbn torheDilcmmaofrhc(irenon . in Stcwan (ed.) lfqvrE): 7691: cartd vcBion in thno ot Philolophl l7l EIi. ?&rrsrlr, 5 (198E): 12000), llcScl\ InteDal C.iriquc of N!,!c Rcahsn, ,tolrral ,/ t'hih\.)pniL R.seoa 25: 11 229. ul h, 3 westphal, (l99lia). H.gel s Phenomenobgy Pcrc{rir)n, in Stewa.r M. of ( ed. ) t 99E ) r 2 2l ? . ( 1 (lggubl. llistor!- ord Truth in Hcael\ rhenont?to,tos . tt\t oJn, Bleminston: India.aUnivcairyPrcs. 22 4

lcd.l ltsszt. Method asd Wdlation i, H'82t s N.* l.R.y. Huhaniti.s Pils wig.ums. B. t d.t tt934t, v.thodl'nq.4 dc: dr "n Tnbinrcnr Mohr' (1987). Hcg.l\ conePt of C'!if, in Stilltnrn('d )(19E7)' Willilr|& R.-R. | 20: p.inlcdin stcm (.d ) (l99lc): lll. 5lE-54(1992), Recognitio^: fi.hte Hcsel atul the O'lter' Albonvr SLtlrY Ovl of --- ( I 99E).'Towardt a Non-FoundalioMlAholute Knowins ' Th' Miie^!. l0r 8l -102 SUNY Prcs t'Pedoh an l Mod.mit! Albanv: Winficld.R. D. (1991). Wingcnstcin. L. (l96li). Pr,ldoPti.d/ /n1$,radrrea' lrd edn llltt C E M. An$ombc.Oxford:Ahck*ell Rdls of Poliliql Mod'miry FrcNh Revoluriontrv Wotl.r. R. (199?),'The in Hc8el\ PhikNophy,or rhe Enlighrcnm tt DNk . A!/tu'i"/'ne lleg.l s.xiet,-olftldt Britoit S5:11 a9 of (19;8), co;tcxlurlizing Hegcl\ Phcnomenologv the Frcnch and Revolurion rhcTcrof. fd l,i. ul Theort.2613l 53 Manchcrer - rcd.l (f995). Ro4\seuuond l!l'?rt. Mancheslcr: Prcss Univ.6ny wood. A w (is70). ](dttt Morul Rcliqnrn.lthac^nd Lontlln Comell
(19E9), The Em incss oflhe Monl Will . LP Md"ir/'

in rcpnnied slcrn (cd.)(l59lc): lv 16l) 8lt ( LJn've6rrv llsst)). Ilesd!| t1hr1|l lit,rsr,. rmb.idse:Canrbridgc lcd ( l99l). lleSclr tihiei.'n Bcrscr | { l9r)llr ll I ll l w l l l cman.A . tJ) l l ' rxcr' /hatt "n t N t t hhdl I 't r ' R'hxh r al I 'hl'anJ v?l r ,/-v.l /,\a1. LLU rcn l) , {dr . ( ht LculcnI nr t c^n) PRs

229

T
lndex

n
-

g
6

Ab3oluL XroPinS l9H Activc Rcc!.tr I 13 24, 135 AndSon 13H4,146 /lntigon \33,1t945 Ariltotl. EE,l0l, l0E, t22

com.dy 188,lE+90 CorsicM t7t-{2 C6ig. E. J. 44 C!.on llH4, 146 PhibsoPhy5, 63, q Crcc.,B. 152,198 Cultu.e 147-51 D cNys. M I 44 ?3 dcsirc 5. 185 W dvries. A 44.108 xiii dialecric xv, l5 16,20, 21 ,26, 41.l5l, l8l, 20li rec also univdsality, DideroiD. xiii,26, l5l divinelaw l3GE, l4O M. Donougho. 139 Phil^ophi.ol S.i ces6' 1, la. A\i tee also ligic'

b.aulifirtsul 163,180 ,. BcnBtcin. M. 8l Bllnshatd, 8 56 F. Bradley, tl 54{ budL vicw of obj.cr 51,{ c.teton.s 16,18.20 1' 22 65, 5S-, 81,97,99, l0l' 109,151,197-E Cl$ittisilY xii, xiii-)dv 92 l 9l -4

z3l

IN D E X

Philosophrol NatureiPiibop,v ot Riet.. Philoe'phr oI Spint Etrt k, F. xi E liglrcfi|.nr xi, riii, xi!.3 -4, 14. 15.29,l8+5. 192: ato hilh J@ dd lnlight.nm.nl cpic IEE 9 Epictctus85 .th ic r llif . l32 l. 13 5 5 ,1 6 3 , -4 206n. 2 Ethical Wdld 116 8 FrNr ll9 20 ranhmd Enighte|ttmt l5l 7, lE3 t_eue.bach, ri. rt4 L. l i c hl. ,J . C. x iii, 4,6 0 .9 8 ,9 9 .l 5 E , t68 Findlay. N. 77 J. Flci$tM. E. 140 tbrc. dd $e Und.NtandinS 45, 5 9 66. 67 { t , llt . t9 6 Fo B r c . , . N. 9. 2?.E6 .l 1 7 , 1 2 5 M ftedom 14.li2 -1, ll0, 13. 67. I 57 { 8 tench Revolution l, E5.15?68 2 Fnkuyua, [ ?7 ('a ll. ' , I ll cr?tu, 201n. ?r !? dto Spiril ?. w'll 8neral lslt 6l 1, Cc m anldealis m .1 .6 0 Coc lhe.. W l. ll9. l 5 l . l 6 l J (i re ek 25. 26, 29. 8 8I.1 4 9 . 1 2 2 , s ll2 L l] 5 47. 14 8 . tE6 7 . 1 8 9 .

Hnris. H. S. l5- 67,E9, lE4. 206 n. I Hryin. R. 10.26 Hc8.l. C. W r. ch|..cr.r l-2r l i f.4 9 HGiE.H. 169 H.r.lcr,L G. riii. 125 Hcrnq. B. 13l Hinchrun.L. P l6G I Holddlin,J. C F. l,4, 14 Houl8d.,s. t4 t, t9l hulM law 1168, l4o H u mcD . x i i i ,55,105 . Hyppolite, 86 J. idealism 102: 9? absolulc lm. 1 9 8 K @ to x i i i .17.6?, : 9{i 102:subjerive100: .rR dka c.tlra ld.alism

t4d

srlrB 145-?

Licht.nb..g, G. C. I 12 lif. ?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.l E .655. 16l . l 6E . t96. t97 8. 199 2@. 204n. 5 L6*nh. K 50

9. 2?. Pdpept id 2E. 45, 50. 51 lll. 196 Phit6opht of Noture7,24. 6a 6.1.1234,129, Pltil6opt, of Riaht 145,t46. 158.16l, 162-4.15E Philotophr of Spitit 1, 9, 21, 25. phr.nology l-13 ll Pinld4l 2. 5 6, 204n. 7 R. Pippin. B. 10.25. 26,2?,66, 67 Ptaro l0l 8E, Ple6urc dd Ne.3lnY I 19-20. 124 postulares ofPdclicrl rceo 169 7E p. act ice 9. ?2. E5. lll, l19. 125 6? n Pr cf ec8. 30 6, 9E. 99. 205 9

M$d.!illc. B. l2l

ntioBlism I I 12.22.30 1. 36, 87 E, 90. 9?E, l0l- 5. 185 Rcen al Lawgrlerll7 8 Rcen d Tc(ins L*s l2E ll otso ri relision xii, l)6 lt, see tuith lnd Christraniiyi Ndtu..lRelig'oni Enlightenmentr in Relignrn lhc I(m oiAn: Religion thc rim of An 16G90 D 206 RcliSDnl9(L'14- n I Rcv.aled

msto.d sl.!e 26.7l 85. {16-7, 205n. I n.2 MoE l i ty16878,1E 4.206 Ia c o b iF . l l . x i i i .l l .l 5 , J.bb.R c. l,ll J.na.t Sfl.De,Nn4,1 K.n l . I i i i . ri i i . l . 15-17 40. 6 0 ,6 6 _ .1 .9 1r l ]| i tt. 7 102. l 6 l t ? 8 ,1 0 6 2 n Nr8el,T 26 NalumlRelisionl8l 6

F 200 Nrcrzsche. 169. 19. N oti on 10.l l . 36,41.106. n.6: 198.204 re.,ko un'ves.lity.panrculurty

P Ri! y. 158 5n Robcns, l. 204 8 xi, Rom anlicism I 4, I 14,198 Romd world89. 145 7, l4li, l9O 62. RolN! ! . JJ lll. l4li. 157 t64 5. 167

l l allerK L r iii , llamann. c xiii J. l l ar dinon, ( ) . 12 .1 6 8 ,2 0 1 M 23 2

L.q olth. Hafl120 2, 124 l l w s 6 2 4 . 1 0 57 , 108 l l

233

Schclling,F. \{ J. l, +5, 14,12 4, 60, 98, 99 Sc bill. rF . 4, ll7, l2 l ,2 0 6o . I , ScboF her, A. 170,2Ct0 Schulzc, E. 9l G. S.i.n. of Lei. 6,1i s@oho L ic lci.ntinc im!9. 60, 6l S.U8, W 60 28,43 51, lll, 196, ScG.-cenainly 205n. I Thi.d &rl of 122 Shanesbury. ShBd.l.76, l:14,159 Sr/,irla,r: ree .lhic.l lif. Smith, 123 A. Solmon.R. C. 129,l4l Sophales133,139,l4l, 144 Spirit7,14, ?4. l3l. l15-6. l3E, 1 47, l8l 2. 184, 9 5 , 9 8 , 9 9 . 1 1 1 2O in. 2 Spi.itul Animl Kingdom 124 7 1 St c mR. 27, 56, 671 0 2 , 6 l , 1 9 6 . . , 201 Sl.win, L 27, 66. 144 5 Sioi.ism85 90,9l subltdunvsttribut vi.w of objc.t 28, 52 5, 66 Sut r, r-F. l5E Taylor. 27.51.EE.158,199 C iel.ology107 8

th.ory67 9,72. t5, I13, I19 Erg.dy 139,l:l0, 142,144,lEE, lE9 tlr!.cnddtd lglmor 27 '&!vi6nB, G. E. 106 Unh.ppy ConlcioqlncarE5,9l-7, l 4 7 ,l E3 univcBrlit, pdicubrity nd irdividulity 19 20, 2E-9. 4,1-{0,62,65,75,E9,92,95, , 9 7 ,1 0 5 , 0 9 ,l t6,120. 1 122. 123. t2G1, tJ6, t42, t62 7,l8t, 1 9 61 ,2 U 6,204n 7,204 5, ^. n .6 univcNlizbility 128 32 Valb.rg, J. )6 J. virtue and ftc way of the World t224 Walsh, H. ll0 l W W.n.nberg, 1 E. 67. 204 n.5 westphlI,K. R. 27.44,67, l3l. l6E william, R. R. 75, l99 Winfield, D. 196 R. Wokle.. I58 R. w o rk8 5 .9 1

234

ioutl.dt. ?hllorophy culd.loolt

Edit d bt fn ae ed rdd|' U,b..drt Colbs. Len X.fd rd d. ti.oo.nocbry LrLaLt wolfi ot S9lrli

dr. tillotopil

Guld.lool to

egel
the
omenologt Spirit

rtd rha Prlndph. ot Xuman x||oarLdga

Adttotf. o.f Eihlcr c.rard J. Huths Hum. of i.fhlon hru o'contor jd fh. ko.dologt Lftnfr /nrt$y &vib n|. har thfd.fE r G.qg. Padto. lhg.f q| Hhry Jdql uccsprt Hur| qr o..llBf Jor.t d,'ill/r Xr|t ..d lh. C.lilq|| ol hdt Laaoi t{ on Ub.rlt Jona!,vn RtLt ia&r Cd.rp Illl o|| t dlltdr$|n S.ba$b' G:atd,t t

ffi
*{

o
4ylttttui;,

tMtlganataln.nd lha Phlloaophlc.l Inv.itlerlloor Pfaio and 6. frpuulc fnd(a o.'r GovrmrFni Nlatnld Pawat D. A. Uord no^6

ffinn;jt ''fu4r,yr1Ji

P' ffirT

f.oala o.! Huir.n Undsst nall',g E.J. lnw Sdnoaa rd rh. Ethlct G.n vlN Llord

rkrll ';;
Robert Stern

LO NDO T nD [ lW Y O r( A

ffi1*

r!r":\! -_

,r . :r5r-r!r/

Rouihdgc Philo!ophy 6uid.Book!

I drr!{ br Tm ( @. lnd r(nlrhan wbtft
l,tr|r!h. (-t{hxt h'ndon

l c!l l ..l g.

thl l oi ophy

G uid. aool

ro

H.g.l .nd th. Ph.nomenology Spirit ot B.*cl.y .nd th. Principl.i of Hum.n Knowl.dge Arittotfa on lthici (;.rd/d.l lhttahlr Humeon 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.! Hurneon Mor.lity J,'.r t i//,. Kant and lh. C tique of Purr Rcaron :ilhnnidn Cdnlaar Miff on Ubrty Jo"otho" Ril{ Mill on Wlitai.nitm i,)srr ( 'ap Wlttgenstin the Philoiophi(alInvertigations ind Pfaloand th nepublic Nnrnl4\ rdryv\ Lo<leon Government D I I lont Thnn\ Locle on Human Understanding li ./ /.drf Spinoza and the Ethlcr <itat\rtr Lk^\l

Hegel
andthe Phenomenologlt of Spirit

HI

r RobertSter n

L O N D O I I A N D N T W YOR X