Perception

In the first sentences of Perception, Hegel discusses the relationship between perception and universality, writing: “Immediate certainty does not take over the truth for its truth is the universal, whereas certainty wants to apprehend the This.  Perception, on the other hand, takes what is present to it as a universal.  Just as universality is its principle in general, the immediately self-differentiating moments within perception are universal: ‘I’ is a universal and the object is a universal.  That principal has arisen for us, and therefore the way we take in perception is no longer something that just happens to us like self-certainty; on the contrary, it is logically necessitated” (111).  The notion of perception as an occurrence which necessarily ‘takes what is present to it as a universal’ is misleading.  Although perception may take what is present to it as universal, it is not requisite.  It seems possible for perception to coexist alongside doubt, causing a cognitive disassociation of perception with universality.  This disassociation lends uncertainty to Hegel’s understanding of perception as defined by the universality of self-differentiating moments therein, as it requires that perception accurately distinguish through a lens of subjectivity, which would be, contrary to Hegel’s assertion, unattainable. 

            Furthermore, Hegel writes that “for us, or in itself, the universal as principle is the essence of perception, and, in contrast to this abstraction, both the moments distinguished—that which perceives and that which is perceived—are the unessential.  But, in fact, because both are themselves the universal or the essence, both are essential.  Yet since they are related to each other as opposites, only one can be the essential moment in the relation, and the distinction of essential and unessential moment must be shared between them” (112).  Hegel’s logic in this instance is difficult to comprehend, as it requires ‘that which perceives’ and ‘that which is perceived’ to be essential, unessential, and/or neither at once.  Can anyone shed light on what seems to be an impossibility? 

Hegel, Romanticism and the Enlightenment

In Schacht's journal article A commentary on the Preface to Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit", he points out Hegel's reaction to Romanticism as an inferior mode of gaining knowledge, suggesting that it "[reverts] to an essentially more primitive sort of thinking" (Schacht 3). This is suggested throughout the Preface, but most clearly in Hegel's assertion that "the intelligible form of Science is the way open and equally accessible to everyone" (Hegel 7), and later that "knowledge is only actual, and can only be expounded, as a Science or a system" (13). On the other hand, however, Romanticism's preoccupation imagination/feeling as a way of gaining knowledge called for a focus on the subjective experience of the individual with the world. Interestingly, the Romantics were attacking the Enlightenment (which preceded them and valued empirical science as the only method of gaining knowledge), thus demanding a more subjective approach. Is Hegel then calling for a reversion to the empirical sciences in his Preface?

According to Schacht, Hegel's use of the term 'scientific' should not be equated with empirical science. Logic, rather, captures Hegel's meaning since "the Truth or the essential nature of things consists in a network of logically related concepts, [and] can only be grasped through a philosophical mode of thought that is rigorously rational and logical" (Schacht 2). This may relate to the three modes of concept that Professor Johnson pointed out in class (Universal, Particular and Individual), for it is possibly the case that Hegel found fault in both the approach of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. On the one hand, the Enlightenment placed all its emphasis on the Universal of empirical science, while the Romantics placed all the focus on the Individual subjective experience. Both of these result in extremes that obscure the attainment of Truth.

Perhaps, then, Hegel is positing a new approach to knowledge, one that incorporates all three modes of concept: Universal, Particular and Individual. He seems to do this by proposing "intuition of [the Absolute]" (Hegel 4) as a way of gaining knowledge of the True. If the Absolute is the unity of subject and substance, as well as the process which brings this about (as Professor Johnson suggests), then surely Hegel is combining the approaches of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. For in order to gain this knowledge, the Subject must experience the Substance "through conceptual, rational thought" (Schacht 2), and yet, simultaneously, subjective fragments of the Subject are revealed in the Substance/object. Thus Hegel unites the Subject and the Substance, the subjective and objective, the internal and external, and in this way gestures towards the Absolute.



Works Cited
Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Schacht, Richard. "A Commentary on the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit". Philosophical Studies: And International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 (1972).

The Geist of Occupy

In paragraphs eleven through twelve of his preface, Hegel writes of his time being ripe for a change into a new era, for, as Hegel explains, it is in the nature of the Geist to continuously progress forward and separate itself from the world and culture that produced it. The result, or rather, hopeful expectation is that the new era will have a dramatic transformation, both intellectually speaking as well as spiritually. Hegel predicts that this metamorphosis of Geist will be a “product of a widespread upheaval in various forms of culture, the prize at the end of a complicated, tortuous path and of just as variegated and strenuous an effort” (7). I find this to be incredibly interesting due to the connection between Hegel’s descriptions of the change in his era, and the rise of political and social movements around the world, specifically the Occupy movement and their causes for their civil disobedience.

The Occupy movement has been an odd conglomeration of ideologies and actions, all spurred by social inequalities, corruption of the United States political system, as well as the influence corporations have in politics, and the spirit of the movement has been flowing throughout the world, and it is inspiring individuals who may not even be a part of the movement to start demanding for change. Hegel’s Geist seems to be transcending over the movement itself, but will it last for long? The movement itself appears to be attracting more and more attention every month, yet the demands are for a dramatic transition that requires more than just marches on Wall Street and solidarity amongst protestors and sympathizers. I believe that the path that must be took is going to have to be an even more painful system than is currently being experienced, for rather than demanding social equality amongst the social system, Occupy demands a shift of the economic system as well as our very own political system. Minor changes or even arrests of the corrupt will not be enough to satisfy the movement, for that is simply too small, and in America, we tend to like to do things big like our hamburgers.

Things at this point are unknown. While there are those who will naysay the movement itself or are protesting for the cause, and each are positive that their side will succeed. But at this point it is necessary to look through the movement and see past the message and see just what is driving it. Our Geist is not for science, but for something much greater.

Hegel's Dialectic and the New Understanding of the Role of Philosophy

I’d like to write about a statement Hegel makes right at the outset of the Preface to the Phenomenology. I think it is indicative of how Hegel perceives philosophical cognition, and I believe it stands in stark contrast to the attitudes and inclinations of our scientific age. In paragraph 2, on truth, he writes, “The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple disagreements” (p. 2). Judging by our discussion of the Absolute and the dynamic nature of the Notion, it appears Hegel certainly would advocate understanding philosophical progress as “the diversity of systems as the progressive unfolding of truth.” Our scientifically-oriented minds tend to be strictly binary with regard to propositions, statements, or beliefs. This or that proposition is either true or false with no gray area in between. Indeed, the study of logic calls this the Law of the Excluded Middle. It follows then, if we believe the law to be true, that we should regard this or that philosophy, insofar as it is merely a set of propositions, as either true or false. Subsequent philosophies for a given subject matter must be intended to affirm or contradict some prior philosophy to the effect that a contradicted philosophy should be completely disavowed. This is the sort of method that today’s scientific mind is accustomed to.

Judging by some background reading of Hegel and our first discussion in class, it appears that Hegel seeks to divorce philosophical cognition from that sort of method. His dialectic, his ideas on the Absolute, suggest that newer philosophy is meant to refine old philosophy, to build on top of the older. The new is not meant to replace and contradict the old, but it’s meant to include the old’s contributions within itself. All philosophy, it seems then, is positive, and should never be regarded as demolishing.

Limits of Cognition

In the Introduction, Hegel describes two ways in which our understanding of cognition alters our perceptions. If cognition is seen as an instrument for attaining an understanding of something, then we accept an inevitable alteration of that something. Or, if cognition is understood as a medium through which we see the ‘light of truth’, then we still do not get the truth ‘as it is in itself’ (46) but an alteration of the truth as it passed through the medium of cognition. Hegel goes on to posit that both these ideas about cognition assume a separation of ourselves from cognition. He describes a standoff between the Absolute and cognition, and their independence from each other.

Another aspect of this writing about cognition is the idea that our cognitions have limits. Hegel recognizes and disputes the necessity of working to understand our limits of cognition before exploring new areas of cognition as stated as necessary in previous philosophical work. What would be the purpose of an awareness of one’s own cognitive limits? Hegel offers a fear of error asking, “if the fear of falling into error sets up a mistrust of Science…it is hard to see why we should not turn round and mistrust this very mistrust” (47).

In Hegel’s discussion about the Absolute, cognition, and mistrust of science, I wonder (and I may just be missing the point) what the risk in “error” actually is? If the ideas about drawing the limits of cognition are created from a fear of failure, what is at steak that would influence this trepidation?

Hegel Philosophy: A Rigorous System to Achieve Actual Truth

Reading Hegel's Preface, might be one of the harder things that I will have to endure this semester, but I think that it is a much easier read when I understand his terminology. Correct me if I am wrong but the meanings of common terms are exponentially more encompassing than the regular denotations. Say for instance, when he uses the term "absolute" or "truth". These connotations are different. When I read the word absolute, it means a complete system, whether it be God or everything. Just like that, the word truth means something different too. Truth does not just mean understanding something or being correct on an issue, but truth means the end result of the rigorous process of understanding through negation and frustration. Something is true when through this process, you gain full-encompassing knowledge through self-consciousness. With that in mind, reading Hegel seems much more interesting, and I am less apprehensive about the material.

In search of truth, Hegel tells us that we do not know and that what do not have actually knowledge. If we did, we what not be needing his "help". The Preface is just a reminder that this search is going to be arduous. Even though this was brought up in class, the steps results in full-engagement with the consciousness. So first when you realize that the certainty that you hold to be true has holes in them, you eventually go into despair. From there, can we reevaluate our first claim and certainty. That process is repeated until we reach truth.

The Preface is truly a philosophical science. This really reminds me of the scientific method. You just repeat the steps until, it is complete or true. Even though other philosophers has there take on achieving unity with the consciousness, Hegel seems more complex and in depth. The one thing that really stands out to me is that Hegel does not suggest what the truth is in the Preface. He does not even tell us what certainties of ours that are problematic. The reason that I like this is that he does not try to push the reader into his subjective truths. Self-consciousness (and consciousness) is achieved individually through reflection, which leaves room for individual growth. This is why I think that this philosophical method is so far credible in nature.

One of the most important part of the Preface, to me, was paragraph 21. It says, "Reason is, therefore, misunderstood when reflection is excluded from the True, and is not grasped as a positive moment of the Absolute." From what I understood from it and correct me if I am wrong is that without reflection, your reasoning holds no weight. I, therefore, can say that reasons are empty of actual meaning. This could be said for the Absolute truth or plainly any truths. I assume that this is the reason why people are blinded from the truths in the first place (when they do not realize that reflection should be a major part of life). One of the things that I continue to think about was that maybe we should not hold any assumed truths in the first place. We should reflect before we come up with reasons; therefore, it will not be empty, and it might save us from plenty of frustration.

Tell me what you think.

Hegel's Definition of Science

In the beginning of the preface Hegel discusses ‘Science’ and how to go about doing philosophy scientifically. The preface itself is even titled ‘On Scientific Cognition’. However it is not extremely clear what Hegel means exactly when he says science. In the first couple pages of the preface, Hegel says “The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of such truth, To help bring philosophy closer to the form of Science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title ‘love of knowing’ and be actual knowing – this is what I have set myself to do” (3). At first this passage sounds like science is simply a methodology. It is a standard of rigor that one’s own method should compare itself to. While Hegel might want to make sure than his method is rigorous in the same way scientific method is rigorous, I think he appeals to science for a different reason.

In the second part of the passage above Hegel differentiates between the love of knowing and actual knowing. Historically, philosophy has been seen as the love of learning. In fact the term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek term philosophia; philo meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom. Initially it appears strange for Hegel to say that philosophy should set aside a love of knowing when the word originally meant the love of wisdom. However it is important to keep in mind that Hegel uses the term ‘lay aside’ as oppose to ‘dispose of’ or ‘reject’. This suggests that Hegel does not want to do away with the love of knowing aspect of philosophy entirely, he simply wants to move beyond it.

The difference between love of knowing and actual knowing seems to be a difference in action. Love of knowing seems to be rather passive. This love may be intense, but loving knowledge itself doesn’t necessitate action. Actually knowing, on the other hand, seems to be doing something. Ultimately what I think Hegel sees in Science is that it is actively getting results. Science is not (or at least should not be) abstract musings on a subject that have no relevance to one’s life. Hegel seems to want to get away from abstract musings that while may be a form of loving knowledge, are not really actual knowledge. Science, then, for Hegel, is not so much a methodology but an attitude toward thinking. It is a movement away from speculation and toward application. Is this an accurate conception of science?

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Spring 2012 seminar in 19th C. Philosophy! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 400 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of Tuesday's seminar. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

Blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
  
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
  
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
  
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the comementary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.
  

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
  
• Dr J's Rule #7. Be sure to read Rule #7 under "Dr. J's Rules" on your syllabus. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even on the blog.

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to member of the PHIL 315 class only. This means that only members of your class can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other Rhodes course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J