I think we covered this point before. I remember suggesting that proper names were a counter example of recognition of the particular in language. I seem to recall that the phone went dead at that point from those who agreed with Hegel's analysis from chapter 1 of the Phenomenology, but it still seems to me like a valid point.

All the best
Stephen Cowley

----- Original Message -----
From: John Bardis
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: [hegel] Re: Translating the Image?


--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wmdepot" <wmdepot@...> wrote:

>
> meaning/mineness never can be given up because the subject itself is
irreducible and the basic feature of subject is sense-certainty/senusal
witness ... wherein the subject itself is being included ... etc. etc.

Yes, Juergen, but what is sense-certainty? Mainly it's just
words: "here", "now", "this", "I", "this particular thing".

Or you can just point--this is what I mean. What?

All you're left with is the words. It's all very Kantian.

And yet there really is something there. There just has to be, even if
it immediately disappears into the universal the minute you pay it any
attention.

Or you could just eat it, like the animals do.

John





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]