A general post on Sense Certainty (I think my last unless to respond to a comment, until I come back to it later):

If one examines the term Science of Spirit, there are two aspects to it, one clearly articulated and the other hinted at in the Preface.

1.  Science is the structured exposition of the journey of spirit and that is the Phenomenology of Spirit's task.

2.  Science is the search for truth and that is Spirit.

Hegel I think oscillates without warning between the two at this stage of the text. This is because the reader of the Phenomenology is also one manifestation of the Spirit in its search for truth.

The question bothering me through this whole reading of 5 pages (as different from Alan's) is what is it that actually does the shifting between object centricity, to subject centricity on to the event of sense certainty?  Houlgate calls these microtransitions and suggests that some of these actually can be seen by the form of consciousness, whereas the macrotransitions can't.

quote

To get a clearer idea of the difference between micro- and macro-transitions, let us look briefly at the transition from sense-certainty to perception. Sense-certainty passes through three subtly different conceptions of the object, and Hegel makes it clear that it is taken by its own experience from one conception of the object to another: ‘sense-certainty thus comes to know by experience [erfährt also] that its essence is neither in the object nor in the “I”’ alone (§103/73). Indeed, Hegel states that the whole ‘dialectic of sense-certainty is nothing else but the simple history of its movement or of its experience’ (§109/76). The micro-transitions that occur within the chapter on sense-certainty are thus ones of which sense-certainty itself is aware: it knows that its own experience takes it beyond its initial conception of the object.

end quote

Houlgate, Stephen. Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit': A Reader's Guide (Reader's Guides) (Kindle Locations 601-607). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

What does it mean to say that "sense-certainty itself is aware"?  Houlgate anthromorphizes Sense Certainty in his account.  If one takes the 'micro-transition' from one that sees the truth in the object, to the one that sees the truth in the subject (the first transition), the movement is huge.  To me it seems like it is something from a kind of empiricism to almost a primitive rationalism.  So natural consciousness at least, I think, would not be able to see this transition.  As a social formation, those who swear by the rich truth of the object and those who swear by the primacy of the subject would be completely opposed to each other.  So how can one say that Sense Certainty is aware?  It is not the finite consciousness that becomes aware.

My point is that Sense Certainty should be seen as the movement of the infinite.  In other words, it is the movement of Spirit -- it is the Spirit's search for truth (in Hegel's framework).  There is no difference between a micro and a macro-transition.  What We see as we follow Hegel, is the shift from one stage of Sense Certainty to the next -- which may be logically minuscule, but actually quite great.  So as a (phenomenologist's) Science of Spirit, we witness the Science of Spirit (itself in its search for truth).

The question then is: what is truth?  Again the preface (I think) is a guide here.  The truth is not the thing or that we think is behind it -- it is what we can know without error.  What we can know without error is nothing but the way we think.  

Srivats

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:47 AM 'Alan Ponikvar' ponikvaraj@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

I am not surprised by this.

 

I try to focus the point at issue and you throw a tantrum.

 

The problem we have here is structural.

 

As a group we ignore what in the world is never ignored which is that there are levels of competency.

 

Here we treat everyone as if they are all competent and thus able to participate.

 

But what happens when the point at issue stresses one’s competency?

 

What happens when the polemic about atheists and Marxists must be dropped and one has to show one’s philosophic chops?

 

 

 

For the most part, you are very careful. You do not stray very far from quoting Hegel and leaving it at that.

 

For the most part, you do not stray into the weeds of textual interpretation.

 

When you do, you reveal your limitations.

 

If I were more polite as I might be if you were more civil, then I might have been more gentle and let the question of your competency pass.

 

But you have staked out a very fragile position where your faith is taken by you to validate your philosophic ability.

 

Unfortunately, this is a fantasy.

 

 

 

 

I judge you to be at the level of an enthusiastic undergraduate.

 

There is no shame in this. Others on this site have no difficulty acknowledging their limitations. I, for one, do not claim to have figured Hegel out to my satisfaction.

 

But you are invested in your god and his place in Hegel’s philosophy. So, you have to embrace an inflated sense of your competency.

 

As to you limitations, no serious Hegel scholar would try to determine what Hegel means by speculation by seeing what an online site says about speculation.

 

But certainly, an undergraduate might start there. So, this simple remark about an online site is a tell. It unwittingly reveals who you are.  

 

 

 

As you well know, you would never see yourself as capable of sitting down with Hegel scholars to thrash out the deep issues of Hegel interpretation.

 

You and I know this to be true because you have been quick to defer to others more accomplished than you on this site who share your theological orientation when such others are present to debate some issue with me.  

 

However, at present, it has fallen on you to hold the fort. You have decided to come out of hiding and take on the demon atheist on the site.

 

But you lack the competency to hold the fort even when the only thing that you are defending is your philosophic competency in explaining a text very much removed from theological matters.

 

Again, there is no shame in being less competent … unless you see yourself as in a life and death struggle with infidels.

 

 

 

So, back to your post viewed by me as a tantrum.

 

Try to imagine how others would look at you if we were having this discussion in a circle of serious Hegel scholars.

 

I have reminded you of where the discussion has brought us. I have raised a serious issue that would be recognized as such by these scholars.

 

You respond with a series of scattered polemical remarks indicating that you are unwilling to engage the issue.

 

The scholars would think “who is this guy and why do we have to put up with this? Alan has focused the issue and this guy Paul has decided to go off.”

 

In the end, everyone would see your tantrum not only as an evasion but a manifestation of your limitations.

 

 

 

The reason why I bother to participate on this site is because often naïve challenges are more difficult to deal with than sophisticated challenges.

 

And the reason I am here is to deal with challenges. I am not here to try to convert anyone to my reading of Hegel.

 

Anyone here for that reason would have left the site long ago since there is no one here whose conversion would matter.

 

I realize that we are a motley collection of individuals. It would be nice if we had more members, especially more members who are accomplished Hegel scholars.

 

But unfortunately, we do not.

 

As a group we are on life support.

 

It will be interesting to see who is the last man standing.

 

 

• Alan

 

 

 

 

 

From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 8:17 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] Sense Certainty

 

 

What stuff, Alan.     The one who is evasive is only you yourself.

 

I have shown cogently that Hegel's Sense Certainty arises within his Encyclopedia (1820) immediately after his discourse on Animal Psychology.    This is the very reason that Hegel characterizes Sense Certainty in the way he does -- with reference to the primitive terms: 

 

       "This!"     "That!"     "Me!"      "You!"     "Here!"     "There!"     

 

Those are Hegel's own terms, and you evade those primitive facts with your postmodern double-speak. 

 

Furthermore, what justifies Hegel's way of presenting Sense Certainty Consciousness is Hegel's Method, his Dialectical Logic, his early Theory of Evolution.   

 

To ignore Hegel's budding Theory of Evolution in his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) as illuminated in his Encyclopedia (1820) is to miss Hegel's point.  

 

So, on the contrary, Alan, it is you yourself who demonstrate an inability to address the hard questions -- or to deal properly with an argument as presented.

 

Your self-evident method is simply to dismiss your interlocutor with a dismissive hand, a smirk and an insult -- without any real argument..

 

You've got some nerve to claim that other people don't present arguments.

 

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

On Saturday, November 17, 2018, 8:22:24 PM CST, 'Alan Ponikvar' ponikvaraj@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

 

 

This is wonderfully evasive.

  I have shown how Hegel decidedly is not talking about a primitive cognitive agent who grunts.

  So, if this what you mean, then you have not talked about Hegel’s sense certainty.

  But, to be frank, I think this level of discourse is a bit beyond your competency.

  You evince the enthusiasm of a perpetual undergraduate who has fallen in love with his philosopher..

  You have not demonstrated an ability to ask the hard questions.

  Alan 

--

R Srivatsan
Anveshi Research Centre for Women's Studies 
2-2-18/2/A Durgabai Deshmukh Colony
Hyderabad 500 007
Office Phone: +91 40 27423690
Mobile: +91 94404 80762, +91 77027 11656
Home Phone +91 40 2773 5193