Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Philosophy Forum
» Philosophy 101
» Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm working on my reading notes for my discussion in my seminar, my section is "Reason and Self-Consciousness." Hegel is a tough cookie, and I have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up with this class so far. Now it's my turn to lead the lecture next week, and I am about ready to die of exhaustion from trying to understand this. A few questions to spark some discussion, if you dare:

1. What does Hegel mean by Notion? It's easy to think of this as "concept," but what exactly does that mean? Concept of what, exactly?

2. The Laws of Thought...this is consciousness turned inward? Hegel says that they "are indeed, not supposed to be the entire truth, but still formal truth...on the other hand...these laws are absolute notions and are inseperably the essential principals of both forms and things" (paragraph 299). What is the significance of these laws of thought? Hegel talks about it with such familiarity that I feel like I should recognize it right away...but I'm just not clicking with it???

@Dosed,

well this book is one of those that forever changed the course of philosophy, as I understand it, by being so very abstruse that it caused a major reaction against metaphysics and the whole 'grand tradition' in Western philosophy.

One of the other contributors here recommends an author called Kojeve on Hegel, he is one of the better interpreters. There is a pretty decent preview on Google Books.

I will hazard a very uninformed speculation on Hegel. Be warned I am not knowledgable in him. His major idea is the absolute consciousness, or Spirit, manifesting through various historical phases, which are the subject of his great insight into 'the historical dialectic' of thesis antithesis and synthesis. Not many other thinkers in the West ever understood the idea of the Spirit in the way that he has. It is much closer to some modern Indian philosophers, particularly Aurobindo, than anything since in Western philosophy.

This idea of 'formal truth' - be aware of the use of this term - it is connected to 'the laws of form' in the the platonic notion of form, not in the sense of 'a formality'. The reason they are 'inseperable' in this way of thinking goes back to the idea of 'universals'. These are held to be the categories which structure the universe. This way of thinking was native to Aristotlean Scholasticism, but was rejected by the Nominalists, starting with William of Ockham. The realists in the Platonic tradition says that Universals, or Forms, are real and that phenomena are only real insofar as they embody these forms. The Nominalists rejected the whole idea of forms and universals, and said that only individual things are real. The modern world is overwhelmingly nominalist in its orientation, and the laws of form have (you could argue) morphed into the notion of scientific law.

But I am improvising here, I have never wrestled with this book, I will leave further comment to someone who has.

@Dosed,

Thanks for your input, jeeprs. I appreciate your thoughts on "formal truth." Didn't think of it that way at first.

Some more thoughts to add to this discussion:

According to Hegel, the body is the expression of the inner being. The inner being is no longer a spontaneous activity. It is an “intrinsically determined original character.” What is the inner? Is this consciousness? What is the outer? The body? What is the relationship between the inner and the outer? How is the inner expressed by the outer? According to Robert Solomon's commentary, this is really a mind-body problem.

Thoughts?

@Dosed,

well according to Aristotle, 'the soul is the form of the body', again, using the word form in the Platonic way (and also acknowleding that Aristotle was a staunch critic of Plato's Forms in many respects'.) This idea of 'instrinsically determined inner character' would be completely natural to a scholastic. Plato said that the soul had all knowledge before it fell into this worldly existence, and that the process of getting true knowledge was a matter of remembering ('anamnesis', kind of the opposite of amnesia) what it had forgotten through the shock of being born (I would love to find a footnote for that one but haven't got time right at this moment).

The Platonic world-picture, enhanced by Neoplatonism, was one of the main sources of Western philosophy. This idea of the inner being is very much 'the soul' and also 'the archetypes', in the Greek or neo-platonist sense. This was all incorporated into medieval scholasticism mainly via Augustine, who was hugely influenced by platonic ideas. There is also a suggestion from pre-Platonic sources (such as Orphism) of belief in rebirth, which would explain why the 'inner man' has certain pre-dispositions. Of course these kinds of ideas were ubiquitous in the ancient world.

But in many ways, this whole discussion is a remnant from medievalism, which all came crashing down with the Scientific Revolution. I really don't have the knowledge of Hegel to say to what degree he is really reflecting this, but I think that might be where he is coming from. But I would need to a lot more reading to verify it. (Incidentally a particularly good recent volume is The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilly, a magnum opus on comparison of Greek and Indian philosophy.)

And found that note on Anamnesis in WIkipedia

Quote:

Socrates' response [to the question of the source of true knowledge] is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of birth. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten. (Once it has been brought back it is true belief, to be turned into genuine knowledge by understanding.) And thus Socrates (and Plato) sees himself, not as a teacher, but as a midwife, aiding with the birth of knowledge that was already there in the student.

@Dosed,

Dosed.;127125 wrote:

I'm working on my reading notes for my discussion in my seminar, my section is "Reason and Self-Consciousness." Hegel is a tough cookie, and I have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up with this class so far. Now it's my turn to lead the lecture next week, and I am about ready to die of exhaustion from trying to understand this. A few questions to spark some discussion, if you dare:

1. What does Hegel mean by Notion? It's easy to think of this as "concept," but what exactly does that mean? Concept of what, exactly?

2. The Laws of Thought...this is consciousness turned inward? Hegel says that they "are indeed, not supposed to be the entire truth, but still formal truth...on the other hand...these laws are absolute notions and are inseperably the essential principals of both forms and things" (paragraph 299). What is the significance of these laws of thought? Hegel talks about it with such familiarity that I feel like I should recognize it right away...but I'm just not clicking with it???

By 'Notion', I find it benficial to think of it as the homonymous 'Motion' in terms of concepts. A concept is stale, static, non-moving, a notion evolves, it is not a fully formed and materialized though, but it has a definite direction, which is what Hegel attempts to outline throughout his dialectic.

By 'Laws of thought' Hegel means format logic, logical barriers, what is accepted as the logical norm, e.g. three sides to a triangle and such, and as well referring to much which was discussed in Kant. It is somewhat of a superficial introspection and reflection on thought and not thought itself. Yet however, it is absolute as this is our starting notion, this is from which all other notions develop even if they ultimately end up contradicting and destroying these laws.

@Dosed,

Dosed.;127125 wrote:

I'm working on my reading notes for my discussion in my seminar, my section is "Reason and Self-Consciousness." Hegel is a tough cookie, and I have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up with this class so far. Now it's my turn to lead the lecture next week, and I am about ready to die of exhaustion from trying to understand this. A few questions to spark some discussion, if you dare:

1. What does Hegel mean by Notion? It's easy to think of this as "concept," but what exactly does that mean? Concept of what, exactly?

2. The Laws of Thought...this is consciousness turned inward? Hegel says that they "are indeed, not supposed to be the entire truth, but still formal truth...on the other hand...these laws are absolute notions and are inseperably the essential principals of both forms and things" (paragraph 299). What is the significance of these laws of thought? Hegel talks about it with such familiarity that I feel like I should recognize it right away...but I'm just not clicking with it???

I've mostly got my Hegel mediated through Kojeve. Kojeve was influenced by Heidegger and Marx as well as Hegel, so I won't venture to answer your questions except to recommend Kojeve's book. I'm not sure if it will help with this particular problem, but it's one of the most engrossing philosophy books I know of.
Introduction to the reading of Hegel - Google Books

Philosophy Forum
» Philosophy 101
» Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Quick Links

My Account

able2know