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.