CU Course on Hegel, Part
2b
Introduction to the
System of Ethical Life
Here follows an approach to Hegel:
In the ancient world of the Greeks and the Romans, and in
the Italian Renaissance, there was a Humanism that saw humanity as creating
itself in the process of interaction with the external, physical world (in
other words: through labour).
In philosophical terminology, this is the interaction between
the human Subject and the Objective world. It generates the study of the
relation between Mind and Matter, which has been the fundamental question of Philosophy
in all eras.
Rational Humanism has always been challenged by more-or-less
superstitious belief-systems. So, for example, the Humanists of the Italian
Renaissance were overtaken by Platonists and Mannerists and the mystical
Counter-Reformation.
The Italian Renaissance was followed by its mostly
Protestant, North European equivalent, usually called “The Enlightenment”. Humanists
of the Enlightenment such as Descartes and Spinoza were later contradicted by
romantics such as Rousseau and Kant.
Hegel came into a Kantian world, wherein Kant was, in his
own words, the “Critic of Pure Reason”. Kant wanted a way around pure reason. Kant
wanted a license, or permission, to be irrational, or just lazy. Kant wanted to
escape the most difficult questions. Kant wanted a short cut.
To recover philosophy from Kant’s cop-out, Hegel did not go
back to a static vision of the Human Subject, whether individual or social,
facing an objective wilderness that must be tamed.
Hegel shows more than that. Hegel shows that the Objective
universe is really an observed universe, and is in that sense a Human creation.
As much as it has objective existence separate from humans, yet what defines it
is not that alone, but also the attention that it gets from humans. The
Objective Universe is that-which-is-known, as well as that-which-is-other.
In the Introduction
to “The System of Ethical Life” (download linked below) Hegel uses two
terms in his first sentence, the meaning of which we need to note. “Intuition” means sense-perception. “Concept” means knowledge. “Perfect adequacy between intuition and
concept” means that what is sensed is known. What is felt, is understood.
When sense and understanding correspond, then we have what Hegel calls “The Idea”.
“But because they [Intuition
and Concept] are then held apart from one
another in an equation as its two sides, they are afflicted with a difference.”
They must exchange their qualities. They do not remain separate. They develop,
“But what is truly the
universal is intuition, while what is truly particular is the absolute concept.
Thus each must be posited over against the other, now under the form of
particularity, again under the form of universality; now intuition must be
subsumed under the concept and again the concept under intuition.”
And so on. There is movement.
The word “subsumed” is typically Hegelian, and it carries
over into Marxism.
We strive to understand these three paragraphs. What we can
see is that Hegel is describing, not merely a static relation of Subject and
Object, but a development of the relationship such that the opposing terms can
change places, or one can be subsumed under the other, but their union, perfect
or not, does not negate their identity. A simple relation is not perfect. There
is more. The last line of the Introduction says:
“Or in this way the
identity of the particular (i.e., the side onto which the intuition has now
stepped) with the universal is determined as an imperfect unification or as a
relation between the two.”
It may be better not
to strain to understand such passages. It may be better to leave them open, so
that meaning can accumulate around them as we look at more of Hegel’s output
over the remaining eight parts of this course. As much as this is simply good study practice (e.g. as advocated by Tony Buzan), yet patiently deriving meaning from incomplete or "broken" data is also very Hegelian.
Please
download and read this text via the link:
Further reading:
Hegel
Myths and Legends, Introduction, 1996, Stewart (6643 words)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment