Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hegel] Re: "What is rational is actual..."

Expand Messages
  • Beat Greuter
    ... There is no amount of autobiography here though Hegel had always the deterrent fate of his best friend in mind, and also the Romantic school (i.a.
    Message 1 of 130 , Dec 15, 2010
      John Bardis writes:

      >
      >
      > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>, Bruce
      > Merrill <merrillbp@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear John,
      > >
      > > Thank you for taking this up, and pointing to Franco's essay and the
      > > relevant quotes.
      > >
      > > I'm afraid we have to set aside this uselessly vague memory of
      > > Pinkard. My apologies for bringing it up!
      > >
      > > My own approach here in terms of where this motto comes from (as
      > > opposed to Franco's?) would be to locate it in Hegel's original ascent
      > > to philosophical maturity, along the axes of adolescent > adult and
      > > hypochondriac > healthy-- axes that Hegel makes use of, sometimes in
      > > an obviously autobiographical context. Wherein adult + healthy are
      > > tantamount to his reconciliation with modernity... and all that. "To
      > > recognize reason as the rose in the cross of the present and thereby
      > > to delight in the present..." So the presence of this motto in the
      > > Phil Right is an encapsulation of insights formed decades earlier.
      > >
      > > But that may be too global for you?
      > >
      > > As it happens, I've already studied the import of hypochondria for
      > > Schiller and Kant (putting Schiller first since his medical essays
      > > proceed Kant's consideration of hypochondria in his very late
      > > _Conflict of the Faculties_. I hope to extend this to the import of
      > > hypochondria for Hegel. Even tho there is less material in regard to
      > > Hegel, than there is with S and K, it strikes me as significant. (And
      > > I'm not alone in this.)
      > >
      > > What intrigues me is how, for each of them, their conception of
      > > hypochondria is significantly different, yet the problem brings each
      > > to insight into their own nature, as well as insight into their
      > > respective philosophies. And so, from my perspective: how the
      > > autobiographical intersects with the philosophical.
      > >
      > > Bruce
      > >
      >
      > Dear Bruce,
      >
      > I imagine many people here might not have a clue what you are talking
      > about. So I'll give the relevant quote from the zusatz to para. 396:
      >
      > "In this diseased frame of mind [hypochondria] the man will not give
      > up his subjectivity, is unable to overcome his repugnance to the
      > actual world, and by this very fact finds himself in a state of
      > relative incapacity which easily becomes an actual incapacity. If,
      > therefore, the man does not want to perish, he must recognize the
      > world as a self-dependent world which in its essential nature is
      > already complete, must accept the conditions set for him by the world
      > and wrest from it what he wants for himself. As a rule, the man
      > believes that this submission is only forced on him by necessity. But,
      > in truth, this unity with the world must be recognized, not as a
      > relation imposed by necessity, but as the RATIONAL.
      >
      > "THE RATIONAL, THE DIVINE, POSSESSES THE ABSOLUTE POWER TO ACTUALIZE
      > ITSELF and has, right from the beginning, fulfilled itself; it is not
      > so impotent that it would have to wait for the beginning of its
      > actualization. The world is this actualization of divine reason; it is
      > only on its surface that the play of contingency prevails.
      >
      > "...and therefore the man behaves quite rationally in abandoning his
      > plan for completely transforming the world and in striving to realize
      > his personal aims, passions, and interests only within the framework
      > of the world of which he is a part."
      >
      > Undoubtedly there is a fair amount of autobiography here. But I can't
      > help but wonder if Hegel had Holderlin in mind here as well.
      >

      There is no amount of autobiography here though Hegel had always the
      deterrent fate of his best friend in mind, and also the Romantic school
      (i.a. Schelling, Schlegel brothers). Hegel only describes the evolution
      of the universal soul determining itself to individuality and the perils
      of the transitions between the several moments of this evolution. Your
      quotation shows once more how important (since rational) it is for Hegel
      that man abandons his subjectivity for achieving objectivity within the
      achieved modern objectivity (actuality). In my recently cited passage of
      the Preface of the PhdG (para 72) Hegel says exactly the same:

      "For the rest, at a time when the universality of Spirit has gathered
      such strength, and the singular detail, as is fitting, has become
      correspondingly less important, when, too, that universal aspect claims
      and holds on to the whole range of the wealth it has developed, the
      share in the total work of Spirit which falls to the individual can only
      be very small. Because of this, the individual must all the more forget
      himself, as the nature of Science implies and requires. Of course, he
      must make of himself and achieve what he can; but less must be demanded
      of him, just as he in turn can expect less of himself, and may demand
      less for himself." (translated by A.V. Miller)

      This is what Lorraine Daston (Max-Planck-Institut in Berlin) calls
      non-perspective (or a-perspective) objectivity. It is the objectivity of
      our time.

      Regards,
      Beat Greuter



      > The "rose in the cross of the present" business, oddly enough, points,
      > not to the present as it proclaims, but to the not too distant past.
      > Frederick William II of Prussia (1786-97) was a Rosicrucian. The PR is
      > very likely based on the Prussia of Hegel's youth--as opposed to the
      > Prussia in which he actually lived. But I always get in trouble when I
      > bring this sort of thing up.
      >
      > John
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Alan Ponikvar
      Hi John, There is a sense that what Randall and I are speaking about is our own private concern. Actually, we are speaking around a certain reading of Hegel of
      Message 130 of 130 , Jan 31, 2011
        Hi John,

        There is a sense that what Randall and I are speaking about is our own
        private concern. Actually, we are speaking around a certain reading of Hegel
        of which we both are familiar. Randall embraces this reading while I reject
        it. We are thrashing out some of the issues of this reading that has its
        source primarily in the writings of Winfield, Maker, and Houlgate. So I can
        appreciate how much of this might not be all that helpful for others.

        The discussion about skepticism though is a more widely recognized concern
        as Pippin, Pinkard, Westfhal, and Forster to name some of the more prominent
        English language interpreters read the Phenomenology as a skeptical account
        about the failures of natural consciousness. In fact, as far as I can tell,
        this is the majority view as to how to read the Phenomenology. The
        skepticism is carried over as the preferred way to read "With What Must the
        Science Begin" in the Logic.

        You are right to point out that we have really not really gotten started
        with a reading of the Logic. Last year, I wrote extensively on this site
        about my reading of the beginning. At some point I will revisit those posts
        and see if I want to change or add anything to what I have already said. But
        somehow I have managed to deflect Randall from getting on with his way of
        reading the text. If I remember, he wants to put a particular emphasis on
        understanding what Hegel means by determinate negation. This is fine with
        me. It sounds like a good way to focus the discussion.

        As for your final comment about the coming together of form and content I
        stand by what I have already said on this.

        Regards, Alan

        From: john <jgbardis@...>
        Reply-To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:34:43 -0000
        To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [hegel] Re: the silent fourth






        Dear Alan,

        Randall had been talking about form and content--and I didn't have a clue
        why he brought that into it at this point.

        But I guess what he meant was that the form of the SL is the manner of
        thinking that is going on there, while the content is what is being thought
        about, i.e., Being.

        I believe Randall was suggesting that there ought to be some relation
        between the two.

        I also didn't understand where skepticism came into it. So I quess
        skepticism is just the reason for starting with Being. If you start with,
        say, Something, then the skeptic will complain. And, so then, I quess, at
        every step of the way you can't be too overtly "creative" or, again, the
        skeptic will complain.

        So, then, Alan, I more or less understand what you are saying below about
        the manner of thinking. But you don't relate this at all to starting with
        Being.

        Of course, as Hegel says, the starting place is _just_ a starting place. I
        suppose it could be dictated more or less externally by skepticism. That's
        as good a way to start as any.

        As I said in my last post, I don't believe the form and content, the manner
        of thinking and the matter thought, really come together until the Doctrine
        of Essence. Everything up to that point is pretty much just an exercise in
        futility--except for the fact that it establishes Essence. So instead of
        just making the distinction, as Heidegger does, between being and be-ing (or
        bying, or something like that, in other translations), and saying one is
        just abstract generality and the other is the real deal--instead of that,
        you actually go through all the mediation required to arrive at an immediate
        Essence in contrast to being.

        At any rate, that's as much as I've understood about all this--insofar as
        I've understood any of it at all.

        John

        --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com> , Alan
        Ponikvar <ponikvaraj@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Randall,
        >
        > I think we are both interested in the result that begins in the Logic as
        > pure being. And we both acknowledge that it stands unrelated to that from
        > which might be the mediated result. But this is to raise a problem. What
        > gives either of us the right to ignore the mediation that provides pure
        > being as the first thought? As I understand your approach, a meditation on
        > what might avoid skeptical criticism is the proper mediation. We cannot
        > begin with any determinate content has this would beg the question as to its
        > right to be the first thought. So we begin with an empty thought. But, as I
        > have mentioned already, this makes the Phenomenology irrelevant and it
        > privileges the skeptic as the proper arbiter of all possible beginnings.
        >
        > In contrast, to a skeptically induced abstraction as the mediating entry
        > into the Logic I propose an absolute entry related to a shift of perspective
        > with respect to absolute knowing as achieved in the Phenomenology. What is
        > interesting about these types of mediating moves is that they are immanent
        > to absolute knowing, involving no more than a shift of focus upon what is in
        > view while your approach is entirely external and unrelated to the thinking
        > that has preceded.
        >
        > Another point of interest is that speculative transitions that shift from
        > one to the other moment of an absolute content carry over as implicit
        > thought what is left behind. In the present case, what is carried over is
        > the education of the Phenomenology that teaches the reader that what he
        > observes as the truth of each consciousness is posited in turn as the object
        > of interest. What is carried over is the relevance of the absolute to what
        > we are to think, or the activity of thought is an essential moment of
        > thought content. The lesson is pay attention to what thought does as thought
        > thinks itself.
        >
        > Finally, to answer my own question, an absolute mediation posits the
        > recollected view as equally absolute. It can only be the comprehensive view
        > of absolute knowing if it stands as an absolute or unconditioned view. As I
        > mentioned in another post you can see this same move within the Logic with
        > the move from being for self to the one.
        >
        > Thus the advantages of my view are:
        > 1. It is immanent.
        > 2. It speaks to the absolute sense of thought that acts to constitute
        > itself.
        > 3. It explains how an absolute mediation still appears as a shear immediacy.
        > 4. It avoids an external reflection guided by the skeptic.
        > You mention the refer to the 'self-consumating' or as Miller puts it
        > 'thoroughgoing' skepticism. But this needs to be interpreted. One might read
        > it as you do as indicating the systematic completeness of the skeptical
        > survey. I to read it as referencing Hegel's remark that we should not let
        > the skeptical result be the end of the matter. We have to also see this very
        > same result as positive. Now to your credit you speak to this when you say:
        > "The positive result is "the liberation from the opposition of
        > consciousness"." But that is equivalent to saying the positive result of
        > each refutation of a mode of knowing is the liberation of the consciousness
        > from the mistaken view that its mode is true knowing. In other words, it
        > still really is a negative view. The question still remains: is the
        > skepticism merely negative ¡© a liberation from the opposition of
        > consciousness - or does it mean to offer an alternative way to think as it
        > does within the Phenomenology by providing consciousness with a new object.
        > What I am suggesting is that what is analogous to the new object for us is
        > an appreciation of the essential role of the activity of thinking when
        > thought is absolute in the Hegelian sense. That is, unlike those naturally
        > guided, the absolute does not stand apart from our unessential thinking. It
        > is not there as something indifferent to our attention. It is nothing more
        > that what happens when thought attends to itself. So, it is this
        > repositioning of the absolute and what happens to thought as a result that
        > is what we are meant to learn.
        >
        > If the result is merely negative then when the reader turns to the Logic he
        > still is burdened by what comes naturally as is demonstrated when one
        > attempts to use skepticism to mediate our way to pure being. I have been
        > listening to some of Winfield's class on the Phenomenology. He once again
        > refers to what he calls the 'short argument' to the Logic. That is, he asks
        > himself why his formal meditation on the failings of oppositional thinking
        > are not sufficient. In fact, both he and Maker believe that the short
        > argument really is sufficient. They do not see the relevance of coming to
        > know knowledge as absolute as meaning anything more than a systematic
        > skepticism.
        >
        > But Forster in his book on the Phenomenology I believe does a good job of
        > showing how a systematic skepticism does not defeat the skeptic. It begs the
        > question of how do we show that what is systematic is nothing more than an
        > elaborate solipsism that is unable to prove that there might not be other
        > ways of knowing outside the systematic account that might accomplish true
        > knowing. Moreover, Forster wants to know where is the justification for the
        > original standpoint that has the reader free to observe and isolated from
        > criticism as to this observational point of view. Does not the reader have
        > to be accounted for?
        >
        > Finally, you note: "I think that the basic reason why you take my
        > interpretation (also Winfield's) as "purely negative" is that you would
        > ultimately like to "preserve" the opposition of consciousness."
        >
        > I am trying to the best of my ability to show that it is you and Winfield
        > who preserve the opposition while I have moved on. In fact, I believe that
        > until one recognizes that the opposition as commonly conceived is a canard
        > one cannot really appreciate the point of the Phenomenology. There is no
        > opposition between knowledge and the absolute but there is an opposition
        > between how things first appear and how they subsequently appear in their
        > truth. This is why Hegel chooses to give a presentation of appearing
        > knowing. It is not because it is mere appearance apart from the truth. It is
        > because appearing knowledge is the site for the shift of perspective ¡© the
        > shift from viewing the knowing of each natural consciousness as a failure to
        > viewing this as the truth with a positive result, the new object. This is
        > Hegel's innovation: to not let the negative result be the last word but to
        > recollect what appears speculatively which means to appreciate the absolute
        > achievement in full view but which goes unnoticed when natural consciousness
        > ¡© and most readers ¡© see matters in purely a negative light. Appearance is
        > where the action is. It is not as ordinary knowing would have it as merely
        > the inessential pole of the knowing relation.
        >
        > So, to overcome the opposition of consciousness really means to overcome an
        > opposition that most readers do not even recognize: it is first to posit the
        > opposition between speculative and ordinary thinking and then to show that
        > this is a difference that ultimately is resolved. So first you get as Hegel
        > tells us (PhS, 75) the absolute alone as the true ¡© this establishes the
        > opposition between the speculative and ordinary ¡© and then you get the true
        > alone ¡© the speculative achievements ¡© as in turn absolutely gathered as
        > spiritual truths. The shift in the Phenomenology from consciousness to
        > spirit also marks the conjunction of ordinary and speculative thinking in
        > that spirit appears as conscious modes of knowing.
        >
        > The teaching then is that knowing in its two guises ¡© as ordinary and as
        > speculative ¡© are mutually implicating moments of the ultimate absolute
        > knowledge that is the terminus. We have not eliminated oppositional thinking
        > in its ordinary sense. We have folded it in to speculative thinking such
        > that what is first taken as an external opposition between knowledge and the
        > absolute comes to be reconceived as the inner difference of absolute
        > knowledge. It is this inner opposition that is overcome in the Hegelian
        > sense by being preserved and one might say re-purposed.
        >
        > As re-purposed ordinary thinking or the understanding does not mark an
        > external perspective as it does for consciousness. It merely marks
        > unconditioned thinking that would be immediate, such as the first thought of
        > the Logic. One might say that when the understanding appears in the Logic
        > that it is not your father's understanding. It is not understanding as it
        > functions in the ordinary opposition for which the absolute stands apart. It
        > is understanding as it speaks to one view of the absolute, the abstract and
        > one-sided view. The mediation that follows comes by attending to thought as
        > absolute or thought as active as it attends to being.
        >
        > I better stop here.
        >
        > Regards, Alan
        >









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.