Contents:

1. I) Biographical Sketch
   

2. II)  Introductory Sketch of the Phenomenology of Spirit
   

3. III)  Introduction to Hegel through Descartes
   

4. IV)  Hegel’’s Phenomenology of Spirit, in brief
   

5. V)  Textual Analysis of the Phenomenology of Spirit, §§178-196
   

6. VI)  Reviewing the Main Terms and Ideas
   

7. VII)  Questions for Reflection
   

I) Biographical Sketch:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)

Born in Stuttgart, Württemberg (SW Germany) to a middle-class family with a civil servant father and loving, attentive mother.  Educated in the Tübinger Stift (Protestant seminary in Württemberg) and was close friends with Friedrich Schelling (German Idealism, Natural philosophy, romanticism in Jena, friend of Goethe) and Friedrich Hölderlin (German poet, deep understanding of Greek tragedy and philosophy).  In 1801 was a Privatdozent then an Extraordinary Professor at University of Jena, which was closed after Napoleon’s conquest in 1806.   In 1816 he received a post at the University of Heidelberg until 1818 when he moved to the University of Berlin, where he became rector in 1830.  The following year a cholera epidemic broke out; Hegel fled, but returned, caught cholera, and died in 1831. 

He published four books in his lifetime (Phenomenology of Spirit (1807); the Science of Logic (3 vo., 1811, 1812, 1816, revised 1831); Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1816, revised 1827, 1830); and the Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1822)).  After his death, his students’ notes were complied into the Lectures on Aesthetics, Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1830), Lectures on Philosophy of Religion, Lectures on the History of Philosophy. 

Hegel described this work as an absolutely necessary starting point to his philosophical system, but also a work one must discard after it has put the student into the correct mindset for philosophy.  His wish, that we discard the book, has never been satisfied because no one has ever come to a single satisfactory read of the work. 

The waves this book created in intellectual history are astounding.  During and after his life, there were groups of Right Hegelians and Left (Young) Hegelians who interpreted opposite political implications in the thinker’s work.  His student Alexander Kojève introduced his work to France via a peculiar reading.  Marx and Engels also appropriated his system to develop what we know today as Marxism.  Freud was deeply influenced as well, and rendered a psychological version of Hegelianism.  DeBeauvoir sexed the Master / Slave dialectic to explain gender battles.

There was a romance to his works.  According to Kojève, although this may be an exaggeration, Hegel finished the work as Napoleon was in the battle of Jena where Hegel lived, and that he could hear the bombs exploding as he wrote the last lines.  Other thinkers have suggested that this book is a guidebook to Napoleon about how to best conduct himself as ruler, and dominate the people to maintain order, but not become a tyrant. 

II) Introductory Sketch of the Phenomenology of Spirit

first published in 1807:

TITLE:

Hegel had three titles for his book: “Phenomenology of Spirit” “Science of the Experience of Consciousness” and “Science of the Phenomenology of Spirit.” 

Wissenschaft: German for knowledge or science; means the systematic pursuit of knowledge.  Hegel’s Phenomenology is a true Wissenschaft.

“Phenomenology” is the study of phenomenon, i.e. the study of things that appear to us.  “Spirit” is neither something ghostly nor a religious concept; rather, it refers to “mind.” 

Phenomenon, as a philosophical concept, is opposed to noumena.  Phenomena are things as they appear; noumena are things that we cannot know, things that go beyond our human capacity to understand.  For Hegel, “noumena” is a false category; things are & we can know them, there is no veil over reality, behind which we cannot see (Kant, Buddhist, Hindu). 

SUMMARY:

So, his study is of things that appear to us, and this “to us” means that these things appear, are understood, in our consciousness.  In a sense, this book is working out the evolution of consciousness, of that thing where all reality appears; it is, in essence, like a genealogy of human knowing, the evolution or development of mind. 

So, to use this metaphor, to get a grasp on what is going on here, imagine a person who is not yet socialized, i.e. has consciousness (awareness) of things, but not yet of the self nor of another person.  This is the sort of figure we first meet in the selection. 

In other words, in the development of our consciousness [minds], we first face outward, we see (understand) things as out there, in front, external. 

What we are reading about is how purely external awareness becomes awareness of the self and of another person (as person like the self); in other words, the development from consciousness to self-consciousness.

We can also understand this development on the grand scale: as the evolution of the human collective, of societies, and of the evolution of human history.

But… We begin by understanding the Phenomenology as the evolution of consciousness:  we begin with the development of consciousness from a sensory consciousness that progresses into a perceptual consciousness and then to an understanding consciousness.  Once we have understanding, we are beginning the level of self-consciousness.  This level sees the growth of S-C into desiring self-consciousness and then into a rupturing point, which means S-C splits into master and slave self-consciousness.

But his predominate influence is due to his method: the DIALECTIC:

The Phenomenology is like a spiral; a series of progressive circles.  We must maneuver along these rings in order to develop an understanding of the ultimate stage of development of consciousness, which is this Mind/Geist/Spirit/Reality.  These circles, both individually and collectively, are called the Dialectic. 

Thesis  --  Antithesis  --  Synthesis.

But this is a crude understanding: the antithesis is not the pure opposite of the thesis, but is partially contained in therein and is a further development even as it is an incompatible development.  This incompatibility necessitates the synthesis. 

Imagine: the tension between the thesis and the antithesis builds to a bursting point where something must come out of this: the synthesis.  The movement beyond the tension is wholly self-contained in the thesis-antithesis stage.

Let us look at the rough progression of the entire work:

I) Consciousness

     1) Sense-certainty (this, meaning)

direct, immediate, knowledge of world- sensory is-ness of particular; mere apprehension free from concepts (but, ‘this’ requires a ‘what’)

    2) Perception (thing, deception)

knowledge of sensuous universals of a particular only (sugar = white, granular; how distinguish from fertilizer = white, granular)

    3) Force and Understanding (appearance & supersensible world). 

How know properties are of a thing; unconditioned universal is object of consciousness, conditioned universals are properties, and concept of force introduced as the supersensible medium which has properties as manifestations to explain how we individuate objects and identify them repeatedly through time and change.

II) Self-Consciousness 

     1) The Truth of Self-certainty 

independence and dependence, lordship and bondage  

freedom of self-con., stoicism, skepticism, unhappy consciousness.

(AA)  Reason 

(BB)  Spirit

(CC)  Religion

(DD)  Absolute Knowing

Regardless of how we want to understand this work, as the evolution of an individual consciousness, an evolution of human history, or as some sort of political manifesto on how to be a ruler, the fact remains that the Phenomenology of Spirit describes the development of consciousness from its appearance in the world to the absolute subject (Spirit, Geist). 

This is a path from immediacy to unity:

essentially, the movement from sense experience to sense and reason.

This means that simple immediacy is when consciousness first appears in the world, we can think of this like a thrownness of the subject (described by phenomenology and existentialism as how first we exist, then we define our essence).  We should not, however, think of this as in a birth.  We should not ask too many questions about this beginning, because beginnings are assumptions, they are primary, underived, out-of-nothing.  How can we know about these, and if we know, how can we compare them to anything?  Any beginning immediately progresses to be a not-beginning.  A beginning, as a principle is universal, but its fate is to be abolished, a beginning negates itself.  This is why we cannot say that the dialectic has any beginning or end proper—it is a progression.

Unity is when the immediateness of the subject is complemented by recognition and reasoning.  This is a development of the mind that shows progression of different subject-object relationships:

Subject as consciousness confronts an object as other—as not-me.

Subject as S-C recognizes the object as being also a subject.

Subject as Spirit is unified with the other-subject-object

III) Introduction to Hegel through Descartes:

What can Descartes be certain about after the first three Meditations?

I exist because God exists and God cannot be an evil deceiver.  All fraud and deception (i.e. via ideas and material falsity and via judgments and formal falsity) must depend on the fact that I am imperfect …

Why does our existence depend upon God (D.p..51-2)?

Remember, this is an ontological proof… we prove God’s existence by proving our being…  It would be impossible for me to exist unless God existed. God exists because I can “touch him with my thought” (D.p.46), I am a thinking thing with an idea of God.  I have an Idea of Him and it is such a great idea, it has no falsity and is greater than something I could have learned from outside or produced myself.  The fact that I am, that I have an idea greater than me, proves that there is something greater out there that made the idea and put it in me innately when he made me.  This is how I can know that there is a God. 

What is the extent (scope or limits) of reason—our ability to know?

Initially, in this Meditation, we are told that all thoughts except JUDGMENTS are true—thus, ideas, volitions, and emotions are all true thoughts.  From this step alone, we would conclude that the scope of Reason is valid for all thoughts except judgments.  So, via reason we can truly know ALL reality… ALL truth… BUT…

Then we learn some ideas gave greater reality (i.e. a greater truthfulness) than others, and that some ideas (i.e. those of god) are so great that we are not the authors of these thoughts. 

So reason has definite limits; when we transgress these limits we will be in error.  This transgression is what he explores in Med. 4.; Med. 5 offers a geometric proof for God’s existence; Med. 6 re-establishes the Body and explains how the mind and body communicate.

The Connections between Descartes and Hegel:

For Hegel, of course we can have error, but this does not stop the movement of thought; his method will use error to get to the truth.  Reason, for Hegel, will have NO limit.  We have the ‘potential’ to know ALL… not like Descartes’ potential where we would cease if we actualized it, but a truly Aristotelian potential that is in between raw potentiality and full actuality; we will know X when we develop knowledge of X: there is no limit to the expansive possibilities of our knowing… 

Even of God …  

For Descartes we know God in knowing that we cannot know true infinity or perfection, yet, still “know” these by knowing ourselves as finite and imperfect;

For Aristotle, “God” was form—remember, the shape of the statue, cannot ‘really’ be known without knowing the matter, maker, and reason. 

But… For Hegel, we can know God because we make God real… philosophy trumps religion.

Hegel’s epistemology uses all of the theories that Descartes either uses or reveals to house possible falsity to synthesize the most grand theory of knowing … knowing ALL … 

BUT we are not reading Hegel as an epistemologist, but as revealing Ethical Questions!  So, we move from Descartes’ questions about the self to Hegel and Nietzsche with how these questions of Self conflict with our experience of the Other. 

IV) Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit in Brief:

“Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged” (§178).

For the self to be, it needs the recognition of an other.  This other appears to be out of the self:

“Self-consciousness is faced by another self-consciousness; it has come out of itself” (§179).

The self must supercede this seeming otherness!  But, precisely b/c the other is out of the self, all action of the self is mirrored by the other (§§ 180-4).

If the mirroring was ideal, it would be mutual recognition: each would recognize the other as mutually recognizing; in reality, the falseness of 1st perception shows one recognizing and one being recognized, an essential in equality (§§184-5).

In the beginning, S-C is ego-centric: it is “simple being-for-self.”  It determines the other only negatively (think Nietzsche).  But… the other is also a S-C…  One is only certain of the self, the other is an unknown, but, in not knowing the other, the self cannot have true self-certainty (§186). 

Even if we aren’t certain of the other… we can be suspicious of him…  To try and achieve true self-certainty, S-C presents himself as an abstraction: as something more than life…  Like a person going to battle for an ideal, for something abstract and higher than this individual existence: for recognition of self as truthful self-certainty.  This is the Life-and-Death Struggle (for Recognition) (§187). 

They engage in battle to affirm themselves as higher than a mere body and to destroy the other. 

In the process, they destroy the ideal they were fighting for—how can you achieve recognition if you kill he who will recognize you? (§188).

But… even in the futility of the battle… one still steps down first.  One recognizes the failure and stops to preserve his life.  The one who steps down is the bondsman; the other is the Lord (§189).

The Lord: (§§190-1):

Exists for-itself and for-itself mediated thru bondsman

Power over brute life and over bondsman

Achieves mediation through the other        

Gives up his independence (work) to bondsman

The Bondsman:  

Exists for the lord (as thing)

Under control by brute life and by lord

Must mediate his thinghood by sublimation

Sublimates desire through work

But… a problem begins to develop… The Lord is dependent upon the bondsman for recognition as a self-certainty where as the bondsman does not get this recognition, thus is independent from the Lord for his recognition.  Further, the lord initially desired recognition from an equal…  Recognition from his slave is not as nice.  Thus… a metamorphosis begins… (§192-3)

The Lord become more and more dependent.

The bondsman becomes more and more independent b/c: (1) FEAR; (2) WORK (§193-4).

Fear:  makes him realize his being-for-self because he is scared for himself.

Work: makes him realize his being-for-self by fashioning something else, as being a creator.

“Through his [the bondsman’s] service [work] he rids himself of his attachment to

natural existence in every single detail; and gets rid of it by working on it” (§194).

“…in fear, the being-for-self is present in the bondsman himself;

in fashioning the thing, he becomes aware that being-for-self belongs to him,

that he himself exists essentially and actually in his own right” (§196).

But… there is no revolution.  There is no overthrow of the lords.  This is just the beginning of the realization of the independence of the bondsman.  Before any S-C is truly free, she must repeat the dialectic through:

The development of Stoicism, Skepticism, and the Unhappy Consciousness (which is the invention of the Judeo-Christian religion) (think Nietzsche);

The development of Reason (out of brute nature to making and testing laws);

The development of Spirit (ethical, legal, cultural);

The development of Religion (proper) (natural, aesthetic, revealed);

Then…finally…into the development of Absolute Knowing (aka Absolute Geist)

Now … we will try to understand this sketch better by looking closely at the text:

V) Textual Analysis of the Phenomenology of Spirit,

§§ 178—196:

§178: 

Self-Con exists because it exists for another.  It needs acknowledgement. 

It is a unity in duplication.  This means that it is one, but also two of the same:

(a) S-C is a unity of C and S-C, but is one self,

(b) It is one S-C but cannot be w/o an other (its own existence requires another)

(c) finally, it is one S-C but is conceived as two, as one who splits oneself in two b/c it is going to see something that it takes for another, but is really itself. 

This is self-consciousness progressing into the desiring self-consciousness.  This is also a perfect description of the movement of the dialectic.  The other is also part of the same, the self.  The other is contained in, yet different from the self. 

He then says that this spiritual unity, in its progression, will show us the process of Recognition—recognition is going to require a duplicity, it needs to be mutual recognition.

§ 179:

S-C is faced by another S-C who has come out of itself.  S-C1 has lost itself because it finds itself as other, in this, it has also superseded the other because it sees the other as out-of-itself. 

§ 180: supercession

S-C must supersede this otherness.  This involves two things: 1st it must view this other as an independent other so that it may view itself as dominate and, 2nd when it dominates the other it actually dominates itself, because this other is out of itself.

§ 181:  mirroring

This process is ambiguous.  Supersession of otherness is also a return to self.  S-C receives back itself, by becoming equal with the otherness; but S-C2 is also going through this process.  They sort of mirror each other, because of their unity.

§ 182:  mirroring

The two are like one (mirroring), but, at the same time, each sets up this other as independent.  The second is both part of and independent the first.  (This really confuses, almost angers, each S-C because whatever one does, the other does.  To make it easier on us, we will call these two S-C, who are one, two people).

§183:  mirroring

The action (the double and singular action of the double and singular S-C’s) has a double significance—is done to self and other.

§ 184:  mutual recognition

“In this movement,” the movement is the duplicity of one and the other.  The play of forces is the action, which is done to other and received to self.  Each person is for-itself.  This means that their separate drives, for self-preservation, are separate but the same.  These two people recognize themselves as mutually recognizing the other.  Each is the “middle term,” the mediating factor, each recognizes itself for itself, and each recognizes the other as for-him/herself.  Their immediacy is only via the mediacy of the other. 

§185:  falseness of 1st impressions shows inequality

Now we are going to see how the duplicity in consciousness (seeing other as other) plays out in self-consciousness (how does this process look to S-C?).  First (the falseness of the 1st perception) S-C sees only duality and an inequality of recognizer and recognized.

§186:1st: all about me.  You are unessential.  Not yet recognizing other. 

S-C is 1st simple being-for-self (its essence and absolute is its “I”) (ego-centric).  In this (false) immediacy where it is al self-concerned, it takes itself as an individual.  So the other is unessential for it (is negative).  “I” am who is important, the other is not important for me except that s/he is strange, is looking at me as I look at him/her. 

BUT—the other is also a S-C.  So far, though, I can be sure of myself (but my self-certainty does not have truth) but I cannot be sure that this other is really just like me.  S/he has not presented her/himself to me as a person.  The other just appears to me to be absorbed in Life.  My self-certainty will only have truth when the other confronts me as an independent being-for-self—this requires each of us to confront the other—must be mutual. 

This is the first hint that there is something suspicious for me about this other.  As soon as I realize (and therefore the other realizes) that we are each individuals (pure being-for-self), a death match ensues.  This realization is an action; the action is met with struggle.

§187:

So, in order for us to achieve true self-certainty, we must present ourselves to the other as independent, and this presentation is complex.  The presentation is the pure abstraction of S-C.  This means we must present ourselves as negating the objective, which is the body, thingness, or animalness of ourselves.  This means executing a certain abstraction from independent existence—showing that we are not attached to any specific existence.  In other words, showing a certain disregard for life.  We have to show that we are MORE than just this body here. 

This requires a two-fold action: my action and your action.  The action is SEEKING the DEATH of the OTHER; which is also two-fold, because it is also a STAKING of my own LIFE.  Each proves itself and proves the other in a LIFE AND DEATH STRUGGLE.

I stake my life in this struggle.  I want to kill the other.  We are fighting to establish our own truth as certain, which is to prove ourselves as stronger.  This is the life-and-death struggle.  I must fight because I must make certain that “I” am truth.  Only by staking your life can freedom be won.  The freedom of certain existence.  The freedom of the recognition of your existence  (§187; top of p.114).

The life-and-death struggle is fought because we have an ultimate desire for recognition.  If you win, you establish yourself as a pure being-for-self.  If you lose, you negate your certainty, your being-for-self. 

§188:The cause dies in the struggle…

However—instead of the intended outcome (truth of certainty), in the process of the struggle, truth and certainty vanish.  In other words, what we started fighting for, these noble causes, get lost in the shuffle.  They kill the naturalness of their existence (and their status as extremes) because no one wins or loses, because if one lost, they would be dead.  You cannot be alive without a being-for-self of some sort or any certainty.  And, if you kill the other, how are you going to prove your existence if no one is there to recognize you?  So the fight ends and both are still alive.  Neither wants to die or be alone.

§189:But, one stepped down first…

The struggle teaches us that life is necessary to being a person just as much as pure S-C is necessary.  Now the being-for-self has to develop a complimentary being-for-others.  Our fighters need to learn to be with others.  But, this is not a contract of equality.  No one won or lost absolutely, but one of them had to back down first.

The one who backed down first develops a being-for-others; it becomes a dependent consciousness.  The almost victor maintains a higher level of being-for-self and becomes an independent consciousness; hence we have a Bondsman and Lord.

§190:About the Lord and Bondsman

The lord develops two modes of existing: for-itself and for-itself as mediated by the other.  This means that its one goal is all about himself, his other goal is wrapped up in the making sure the bondsman recognizes him as master, thus he has a stake in keeping the bondsman alive and attentive.

The bondsman is independent only in the sense that she is a person, was recognized previously as a person (because why would they fight if not worthy opponents?).  But her independence is shrunken down to the level of thinghood.  As a person, she is dependent.  The bondsman is regulated to work, his first work is to try to negate his own thinghood (destroy his dependence, work towards his independence); this is never-ending work (Freudian sublimation). 

For the lord, he does not have to work at anything.  He only enjoys, lets part of his freedom, work, be done by the bondsman (Marx). 

§191:Reciprocal Action for the Lord, not for the bondsman…

The lord achieves his desire of recognition from the other.  That other is both unessential and dependent—so these slightly aggravate each other, something unessential can be done away with, but something dependent cannot—but this is not yet a problem. 

Instead we see a strange duplicity of action—the lord, even while not doing work, is active.  He is actually the one who has all the action in this relationship.  All of the work that the bondsman does is for the lord, so it is really the lord’s action.  But—all action is at the same time reciprocal, all that the lord does to the bondsman is received back, that he also does it to himself.  But this is not quite the same for the bondsman, because what he does to himself is not also done to the lord, so the relationship here is unequal, is one-sided.

§192:

[very important section]  In the recognition of the inequality of recognition, a problem develops.  The lord recognizes that his ultimate desire for recognition is actually a desire for recognition from an equal, not from something dependent.  Without recognition from an equal he cannot be sure of his own mastery, his own being-for-self or truth of his self.  (His truth is a dependent consciousness).

§193:

[very important section]  Reveals a metamorphosis going on.  Just as the lord begins to lose (through his recognition of the inequality) his being-for-self (because he has lost his recognition-giver when he realized it was not coming from an equal) so to the bondsman recognizes that he is not what he wants.  Thus by sublimating his being-for-self into servitude, he has started to show a truly independent consciousness growing within him.

§194:

Servitude is only servitude by relation to a lord.  For the lord, servitude, in this case having a servant, is ultimate reality.  His truth is that he is for-himself, and he has another for-him. 

The bondsman, however, has not recognized his situation as having any truth (i.e. self-certainty).  In other words, he sees his reality being truth in the lord. 

But, truth, self-certainty, is really in the bondsman (as well or more so) in the form of a pure negativity and being-for-self. 

Why or how?  Because of fear: his whole being has always been in a state of sheer terror, dread.  In this ultimate fear, everything has crumbled around him and left his simple, pure essential nature of S-C to be revealed.  But not passively revealed, this is actually what he has worked at.  Through his service, his work, he truly rids himself of his attachment to any specific existence (what they thought the struggle was doing).

[The slave shows a non-attachment to things and to thinghood.  Shows that the natural existence is not a “good” existence, it is something that we progress beyond]

The Lord has not had this reminder—he has forgotten (lost) his essential S-C. 

Working, for the bondsman, is kind of like exercise; you practice enough and you build up strength.  And, if you fear something so completely, you work towards evading it and becoming strong enough to stand up to it. 

The lord has no reason to exercise.  He has nothing to fear.

Hegel calls this exercise against fear the start of wisdom.  The wisdom is knowing thyself.  The bondsman, through work, comes to know himself.  He recognizes himself as a person. 

§195:Only the beginning…

HOWEVER—this feeling of power, service, and fear are only the implicit beginnings to a recognition of the bondsman as a person.  The bondsman does not automatically become free, self-certain, what he must do to actualize this change is to work.  Work will make him conscious of this change. 

Comparison of lord and bondsman:  The lord has desire as negating the other—the object—but this only produces the feeling of self.  This is fleeting. 

However, for the bondsman, through his work, he experiences desire-in-check.  The bondsman achieves a permanence of the feeling of self.  The bondsman sees the lord, the original-independent as the actual holder of his own [the bondsman’s] independence.

§196:Negation…

The bondsman is not just undergoing a positive change, he also grasps a negation: the negative signification of fear.  The bondsman fashions the thing, produces something out of his work, and thus shows his ability to negate; this negation—his own negativity—becomes an object for him (which he needs to establish his own self-certainty) which he negate—this object is that which confronts him, it is the lord. 

He negates the lord and posits himself as a SELF, as independent.  This independence—having your own mind—is self-will.  HOWEVER- the slave is not “free” from being a slave, he is still under bonds by the lord. 

We have seen that the bondsman is strong enough now to confront his fear: but it is not a confrontation of the master, a revolution or emancipation of servitude.  Instead, he confronts himself. 

His fear is actually in the “thing” part of him, in his dependence.  He now stands up against his own dependence.  In order to conquer the self, to recognize yourself as independent you must experience both work and fear- absolute work and absolute fear.  The slave develops self-will. 

The bondsman is still in servitude, but he has developed freedom.

Following what we have read, the bondsman cycles through different stages working towards his/her actual concrete mental and physical freedom.  This goes through stoicism, skepticism, and the development of the unhappy consciousness, which is the invention/discovery of the Judeo-Christian religion, which provides the inversion of roles of bondage and freedom.

VI) Reviewing the Main Terms and Ideas:

Wissenschaft:  German for “knowledge,” as in a “science;” it is the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Phenomenology:  The study of phenomena, how things appear to us.  (Note: while there are interesting similarities, this is different than the contemporary school of Continental philosophy named “phenomenology.”)

Spirit:  Geist, mind (i.e., this is nothing ghostly or religious).

Dialectic:  His method, a tripartite one composed of: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Desire:  is an idea that works in many ways throughout Hegel:

The internal tension of the thesis and antithesis is the movement by desire. 

Desire is also like an essential trait in the Self-Consciousness, because it is what demands recognition. 

This desire for recognition is also what leads us in and out and around the idea of freedom.

Recognition:  is the recognition of existentiality, of human-ness, of being an equal. 

Desire and recognition cannot be separated; the ultimate desire is for recognition and recognition can be achieved only through the desire that promotes action for recognition.

We can think of desire and recognition as tumbling around together on a long road towards freedom, but also a road where we might already be dwelling in freedom.  Freedom is the goal, and possibly also the path.

History is the progression of the consciousness to freedom. 

History is the progression to the consciousness of freedom.

Immediacy:  Simple immediacy is when consciousness first appears in the world; comparable to the existential idea of “throwness:” we are thrown into being in the world.  However, it is not accurate to think of this as a birth per se; nor can we ask too many questions about it, for immediacy instantly passes away to being a not-beginning, which is a matter for reflection, not instant, all-present, in the moment-ness. 

Unity:  When the immediateness of the subject is complemented by recognition and reasoning.  This is a development of the mind that shows progression of different subject-object relationships. 

VII)  Questions for Reflection

Why does the life and death struggle commence, what is its goal, and does it accomplish it?

Why does the loser of the struggle seem to become the ultimate winner?

What is Recognition, Desire, and violence in Hegel’s “Lordship and Bondage” chapter? 

What role does recognition play in your everyday life? 

Are we naturally violent?

What is freedom? 

What would be an ideal relation for Hegel?