Introduction:
For quite a long time, philosophy has
contributed a lot to humanity whether it be in any fields such as the sciences,
ethics, politics and many more. History made evident philosophy’s participation
in world progress and has endured a long time of praises and discrimination
just for the search of that goal of man to be able to know and grasp the
truth. Truth, for quite sometime, still remained a mystery because
throughout time it has become plural, not objective nor relativistic, that
truth is not what it is but is how we conceive it to be. Philosophy is
alongside man in his quest for knowledge and ultimately, certitude. Until now,
it has not ceased to continue the goal of searching for certitude as how many
had tried to reach it in the previous times when it was yet ancient even
currently in the rise of modern technology. Philosophy has helped man in his
search or maybe the directing of his method in grasping the truth and since the
history of western philosophy, trends were divided into how one could cognize
the essence of anything or quite generally, everything. From Plato whose truths
lay already in man wherein man has just to recollect or to that of Aristotle’s
truth which is in need to be labored upon to grasp it because the mind does not
yet have truth. There is the great divide in the history of western philosophy
situated during the modern period, especially to that of Rationalism by which
the truth can be attained by following strict logical rules and in contrast,
Empiricism to whose truths are to be derived yet from sense experience.
Moreover, there was Kant and his synthesis of the great divide (which in turn
created another perspective into arriving into truth) and Hegel which is the
concern of my paper.
Hegel has a philosophy greatly patterned from rationalism and as what many
would say that he is a rationalist or an idealist. His philosophy focuses on
the abstract which consequentially confusing wherein “to read Hegel is often to
undergo an intellectual crucifixion: his greatness is shown in that fact that
one seldom feels that such a crucifixion has not been worthwhile” [1] because
Hegel seems to defy certain rules in logic because he views reality differently
and tends to transcend from that logic which strictly promotes non-contradiction.
Moreover, to be fairly Hegelian, he did not actually defy logic but such is a
moment in the progress of truth (I will get to that later on as I will tackle
his dialectical method). It is a quite long plus arduous task and given a
little time to study Hegel, in complying the requirements, so I focused my
paper to Hegel’s way of thinking which is popularly called as dialectical
idealism.
Dialectical Idealism:
Dialectics has its roots in early
Greece when Plato illustrated to us (by means of Socrates) this method in
recollecting knowledge or the truth. Dialectics “is a deceptively simple
technique. It always begins with a discussion of the most obvious aspects of
any problem… his [Socrates] assumption was that by progressively correcting
incomplete or inaccurate notions, he could coax the truth out of anyone”.[2]
The phrase “progressively correcting incomplete… notions” signifies the
similarity of how Hegel’s dialectics would manifest, as progress implies time
which is an important notion in Hegel’s viewpoint and as correcting implies the
negation of negation. In general terms, negation is also a key concept in
Hegel’s system. The idealism is understood to be that which is pertaining
solely to reason which gives offshoots to the abstract because reason is to
abstraction, which the combination of progressively correcting notions together
with the abstract or ideas gives an aerial view of Hegel’s system.
Hegel’s philosophy rests in his method
of dialectical idealism which in fact, his definition of philosophy springs
forth from the very nature of how the method goes. So to clarify, philosophy is
his dialectical idealism and that “philosophy moves essentially in the element
of universality, which includes within itself the particular”. [3]
Hegel is a rationalist for he fashions
the world according to what he thinks of it to be, as a “Spirit” that “is
indeed never at rest but always engaged in moving forward” [4], and how Hegel
thought the world to be, made assurance the method of dialectics, as how the
world progresses and later on end in the Absolute. The dialectics is also about
what the world is undergoing and that it follows strictly what he mentions of
it as moving primarily in the element of universality which includes the
particular wherein everything progresses with mutual respect that none is
destroyed in the process but is partaken into a larger whole.
The dialectics of Hegel at first is
very complicated and confusing especially in reading his preface to the
Phenomenology of Spirit because it is defying our logic of which the “principle
of non-contradiction” rests. For Hegel, the first part or step is to compartmentalize
then later on unify, which sometimes we encounter the difficulty in
understanding this point. Hegel is fond of dividing things into three’s, like
making a tree out of everything in its details therefore, the dialectics goes
like a three pronged maneuver. As he stated, there is a beginning which is
called the “aim” and it is understood as anything that is the start of
something, the current actuality with potentialities. Next is the drive,
process or the stage of becoming and lastly the end or the result which is at
the point of stoppage. Moreover, this goes on and on until it reaches the Absolute.
The statement below shows how Hegel compartmentalizes a certain unity or whole.
“The aim in itself is a lifeless
universal, just as the guiding tendency is a mere drive that as yet lacks an
actual existence; and the bare result is the corpse which has left the guiding
tendency behind it.” [5]
Firstly, we must understand what aim
is. Aim as quoted, is a “lifeless universal” and it is lifeless “for the real
issue is not exhausted by stating it as an aim, but by carrying it out, nor is
the result the actual whole, but rather the result together with the process
through which it came about”. [6] The aim is lifeless because it is still yet
incomplete but it serves as the starting point with a goal or that which is still
a potential something. Moreover, it is actualized and when within the process,
is later on refuted thus it gives rise to a new element which the unity of all
these three is the whole and the aim is one of the “various shapes and forms
which have become its [referring to the whole] moments”.[7] The aim is only a
part of a larger picture.
Next is the concern pertaining to the
guiding tendency, the process or also called as “becoming”. As quoted, it is “a
mere drive that as yet lacks actual existence”. This process or becoming is not
the whole but is only part of the whole. This is when the aim undergoes the
process of actualization as a part of the whole and when it is only a moment or
a series of moments of the whole.
Lastly is the result or the end which
is the “bare result is the corpse which left the guiding tendency behind it”. It
is still only a moment in the progress of thought because this does not imply
that the result is the totality but merely the end and not the whole. This is
just only the outcome of the aim undergoing change.
“The True is the Whole” [8] and that
all the particulars comprise the whole or the universal, because what for Hegel
is True is rational and “single facts for Hegel, are irrationals, only when
such single facts are seen in the aspects if the whole do they become
rational”. [9] Things become rational when they are not taken as an individual
by not separating itself from that factor within which will lead to the
self-realization of it as something that is a whole rather than a part. We make
things into facts because we understand them to be such thus, we are being
irrational because facts are what we think of them as they are and our language
makes them become familiar.
“Quite generally, the familiar just
because it is familiar, is not cognitively understood. The commonest way in
which we deceive either ourselves or others about understanding is by
assuming something as familiar and accepting it on that account; with all its
pros and cons, such knowing never gets anywhere, and it knows not why.” [10]
Due to familiarity, the mind becomes
less active because it accepts a concept or an idea as how it is popularly
known to be. Such is taken for granted to be thought of in depth to what this
idea certainly means and by dubbing it familiar, we find contentment thus
failed to “cognitively understand” it. Therefore, by subjecting any thought
into the dialectical process, this deepens our understanding of a thing not
only as a particular but as a whole which encompasses within it the
particulars.
Not only I am talking about what I mentioned earlier about aim, process and
result as the feature of this dialectical process but the process is also made
possible due to negation. This is a sort of an analysis and analysis is
“nothing else than ridding it [referring to ideas] of the forms in which it had
become familiar”[11], and “Hegel emphasized in his dialectic logic was that
thought moves and contradiction does not only bring knowledge to a halt but
acts as a positive moving force in human reasoning”.[12] This is the time that
the twisted logic of Hegel commences especially when the power of the negative
or the contradiction takes place and it is mover of human thought.
Hegel diverged from Aristotelian logic that contradictions are separate
entities and for Hegel contradiction is part of everything. For example, if I
were use everyday or common logic, then surely white and black are opposites
and what is white is not black. But if I were to be Hegelian, white and black
are opposites but black is already found in the content of being white. The
mind undergoing understanding separates the two, but in comprehension
understand first and then assimilates them in one unity in which that the
opposite is not an “other” but is one with the concept of something especially
with the opposite just like black is one with the concept of being white. In
the case of True and False (being strict to logic and in the state of
understanding), it turns out that “true and false belong among those
determinate notions, which are held to be inert and wholly separate ideas”.[13]
To be inert is to be lifeless, “for what is lifeless, since it does not move of
itself, does not get as far as distinctions of essence, as far as essential
opposition or inequality and therefore does not make the transition of one
opposite, does not attain to qualitative, immanent motion or
self-movement”.[14] In this case, the treatment of the opposite must not be
exclusive but inclusive; that it is not a separate entity as how it is viewed
in logic but as an entity part within a concept because the mind inevitably
grasp the negative concept when it comes into contact with any concept. If it
is inert and the mind simply relates to it as such, then there is no movement
and what we have is just a bland dichotomy with no realization of implications.
“Philosophy on the other hand, has to do not with unessential determinations,
but with a determination in so far as it is essential.” [15] Notice how Hegel
is formulating his system and is sticking to his thought that everything must
be understood as a whole. The understanding of the whole must not be selective
and exclusive but must take also those things that are “seemingly” unessential
to us even though, they are still parts which constitute the whole. The way
Hegel defended the thought that determinateness or the negatives are not
essentials but are actually essentials shows that thought itself is self-motion
and the positive moves only when in the presence or in the conception of its
negative or the negatives. The negative creates the motion or the process which
inculcates the two contradictory ideas into one whole unity and this goes on
until it reaches the finale of it all which is the Absolute. “Truth therefore
includes the negative also i.e. what is false” [16] because “philosophy moves
essentially in the element of universality, which includes within the particular.”
[17] Falsity is a part so is also the truth; when truth is viewed as a whole,
the particularity, negativity or the determinateness of the presence of falsity
is within it therefore, that negativity, particularity or determinateness is
essential to the conception or the idea of the whole. “The True is the Whole.” [18]
Hegel in his dialectics may also be viewed in such a way that there is this so-called anti-thesis and the thesis which results in a synthesis wherein it is
still parallel to how the true and the false are viewed. It is still in a
triadic movement and just to coin the process in the system, it is popularly
known as the thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis relation. The thesis is the
positive entity and the anti-thesis the negative in which it results to the movement of thought and thus making a synthesis which does not dissolve any of
the two and which either of them is right but is subsumed into a larger
reality. So the result is the totality together with the two or the result is
the realization of a certain object by undergoing negation.
My remarks to Hegel’s philosophy is that his dialectics does not
undermine the negative, the particular, the determinate nor the anti-thesis
because they made possible the movement of thought and also the removal of
familiarity in things. Moreover, contradictions are not separate but are one
and that the negative is already in the positive concept.
[1] Findlay, A.D. Hegel: A
Re-Examination. Collier Books: New York.1962. p. 21
[2] Stumpf, S.E & Feiser, J. Socrates
to Sartre and Beyond 18th Edition. Mc Graw
Hill.2008. p.33-34
[3] Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology
of Spirit. Trans. by A.V. Miller. Clarendon Press: Oxford. p.1
[4] Ibid. p. 6
[5] Ibid. pp. 2-3
[6] Ibid. p. 2
[7] Ibid. p. 6
[8] Ibid. p. 11
[9] Stumpf, S.E & Feiser, J. Socrates
to Sartre and Beyond 18th Edition. Mc Graw Hill.2008. p.302
[10] Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology
of Spirit. Trans. by A.V. Miller. Clarendon Press: Oxford. p.18
[11] Ibid. p. 18
[12] Stumpf, S.E & Feiser, J. Socrates
to Sartre and Beyond 18th Edition. Mc Graw Hill.2008. p. 300
[13] Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology
of Spirit. Trans. by A.V. Miller. Clarendon Press: Oxford. p. 22
[14] Ibid. p. 26
[15] Ibid. p. 27
[16] Ibid. p. 27
[17] Ibid. p. 1
[18] Ibid. p. 11
Comments
Post a Comment