>just because consciousness has, in general, knowledge of an object, there is already present the distinction that the inherent nature, what the object is in itself, is one thing to consciousness, while knowledge, or the being of the object for consciousness, is another moment. Upon this distinction, which is present as a fact, the examination turns. Should both, when thus compared, not correspond, consciousness seems bound to alter its knowledge, in order to make it fit the object. BUT IN THE ALTERATION OF THE KNOWLEDGE, THE OBJECT ITSELF ALSO, IN POINT OF FACT, IS ALTERED; for the knowledge which existed was essentially a knowledge of the object; with change in the knowledge, the object also becomes different, since it belonged essentially to this knowledge.
spooky.
It's solved very easily: consciousness doesn't know it yet, but for *us,* the phenomenological observers, what consciousness sees is a distinction that IS NO DISTINCTION. The object-in-itself *IS* (!!!) THE BEING-FOR-ANOTHER, i.e., it is the being of the object for consciousness in its knowledge. There is no distinction. The one changes and alters with the other because there is no distinction, though its moments MUST DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES AND APPEAR AS DISTINCTIONS BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF IDENTITY.
Define consciousness
>y-you can’t define it, it’s an ever changing moment of the endless dialectic?
then why even use the word… it kind of seems like all Hegel does is show that with these undefined vague words you will literally just go in circles forever. I don’t see the point
>Define consciousness
Consciousness is a moment of Spirit which has for its moments Sense-Certainty, Perception, and the Understanding.
>then why even use the word...
It's incredibly important to Hegel's philosophy in relation to the superior moment of self-consciousness.
>it kind of seems
You need to leave "seems" out of your vocabulary from now on when talking Hegel and philosophy. There is no "seems." There is only truth.
>like all Hegel does
He does quite a good deal, even a fraction of which you haven't comprehended.
>is
The poor, pathetic, bare empty copula leading to an even-emptier predicate.
>show that with these undefined vague words
He defines them quite exactly and perspicaciously in the Phenomenology and elsewhere.
>you will literally
Not figuratively?
>just go in circles forever
I see you're at the point of bare consciousness. Welcome: we have eternal Hegel reminders every day.
>I don’t see the point
You're the point, baby: we're going to make you achieve Real Spirit.
How does consciousness “have” them? And yes, literally
Consciousness is the preceding moment before Self-Consciousness. It is not aware of what it's doing, of how it perceives and understands the world. It moves first from immediate sensory awareness of the environment, to perceiving the universality of time and space rather than trying to grasp WHAT HAS ALREADY VANISHED (i.e., the particular time or particular place), to understanding as the Concept of force. But the crucial distinction here is that IT DOES NOT KNOW THAT IT IS PROCEEDING STRAIGHTWAY IN THIS FASHION. Therefore, it only HAS these moments (great catch, Herr), but *isn't* them, i.e., it is alienated from its own cognition and has not taken full possession of it as a self-organizing, self-reflective, FREE being.
I don’t get it, there are still four totally different things consciousness could be
1 the name for the state of Geist from sense certainty to force
2 the thing that constructs force out of sense certainty
3 the mere perception of sense certainty to force
4 the entity that perceives each stage of the passage from sense certainty to force
>1 the name for the state of Geist from sense certainty to force
From Sense-Certainty to Understanding. Force is just the Concept *for* Understanding; it is Understanding's Concept for how it understands its object. What Force is is the dialectical vacillation of the content's content and form. For content, it is the antithesis of the profound unity of the object where there is no difference, i.e., it is oneness, and the utterance, the expression of different properties, i.e., Force, for content, is both Force proper (latent Force) and Force manifest (expressed). For form, the object is both that which solicits itself to express itself, and that which is solicited by itself to express itself, i.e., Force is really two Forces, one that solicits, the other that is solicited, which we understand to just be one Force.
>2 the thing that constructs force out of sense certainty
"Constructs" is interesting to use there. The Understanding, to my knowledge, doesn't construct anything actively. It simply observes and watches Force work on the object; or, perhaps, the Understanding watches the object containing Force within itself.
>3 the mere perception of sense certainty to force
Perception is a separate moment, rendering this statement silly. Sense-Certainty is Sense-Certainty, the world as immediate and there. Perception can't perceive Sense-Certainty: perception perceives its perception, and sense-certainty senses and knows that its senses are certain.
>4 the entity that perceives each stage of the passage from sense certainty to force
That isn't pure, bare Consciousness. That entity is "we," the phenomenological observers. We are Active Reason or at that stage (of course we're conscious, but we're not *just* Consciousness).
You said consciousness “perceives” the universality of time and space. I used perception the way Berkeley does. So now I don’t see what you’re saying. You said consciousness moves from sense certainty to understanding of force, but now it seems like nothing happened except force itself came in and replaced sense certainty by its own power, and you switched out the word consciousness with the word understanding, even though all that happened was it’s object changed from immediate sense certainty to force, so why dont you just say consciousness of force instead of understanding of force? now I am even less sure of what consciousness is, because you’ve reduced it to nothing more than the thing that perceives the universality of space and time and vanishes then to be replaced with the understanding. But it it basically does so I’m a state of oblivion because you never know it did perceive any of it until reaching self consciousness, so how was it conscious at all, and is it perceiving them or not, and what how does it actually participate in this process? it seems like a mere nothing that watches passively as the content of sense certainty reveals itself to imply all these different things.
>Define consciousness
it can be indexically defined by yourself. if can't do this you are a literal npc who lacks consciousness.
Yes I can easily find what people call “consciousness” but to say that it does any of the things they say it does or has any of the properties they say it does I have found no means to verify through mere introspection. You always have to use pre-established conceptual models to create theories about what it is which there is no way to prove. As far as I am concerned consciousness is merely the place where the various parts of the brain are put into communication with each other and translated to each other. You can’t say that is wrong any more than your understanding of it is right.
>I have found no means to verify through mere introspection
try harder
>try harder
I’ve tried much harder than you , trust me.
Consciousness is the truth of the soul which is the truth of nature. Read the third part of Hegel’s encyclopedia if you need further elaboration.
Soul isn’t a proposition or a system of ideas. It doesn’t have any truths or falsities in it, that doesn’t make sense. By every definition of truth, it has an opposite. False. So to say the truth of x implies there is a false of x or that at least there is the potential for a false of x. Those words are incoherent to me and I am too stupid and lazy to read more about them.
>The essential fact, however, to be borne in mind throughout the whole inquiry is that both these moments, notion and object, “being for another” and “being in itself”, themselves fall within that knowledge which we are examining.
>there is no distinction, though its moments MUST DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES AND APPEAR AS DISTINCTIONS BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF IDENTITY.
people act like this is hard to understand
All difference is negated, yet what a phenomena is is determined by its relation to another phenomena, namely the observer. That is to say, the observe see differences in the whole. The creation of new phenomena (which is defined by its creator, "THAT IS THE NATURE OF IDENTITY.") is the act of the phenomenal world becoming self aware of its oneness with God. Which to Hegel was history moving towards the Prussian State. The prefect manifestation of Gods will, and there for humanity was now in total communion with God. Its easy to see how Marx came out of this if you just replace the Prussian state with communism.
Phenomenology of Spirit is mostly just him saying that over and over again.
Over all he's wrong because Nietzsche and post-modernism blow this Christin (Platonist) shit out of the water.
>Nietzsche and post-modernism blow this Christin (Platonist) shit out of the water.
holy cope.
>person disagrees with you
>wow you're just a coping moron
>IQfy in 2023
holy seethe.
What is the endgame of Hegel? What happens when you actually comprehend all the hegelian autism?
Freedom, faith, and oneness, yea!
>What happens when you actually comprehend all the hegelian autism?
You dump him for the real thing.
>What happens when you actually comprehend all the hegelian autism?
literal magic
Are all philosophy this dense? I can't even get past the first sentence. By the time I've finished reading second part of it, I already forgot what was in first. I've read it 10 times and still can't make heads or tails out of it.
Hegel is known for being difficult to read and you should not start your journey with philosophy reading him.
Slavish adherence to the source language's syntax is inexcusable; that much is right.
Brainlet here. I'm gonna understand Hegel if it kills me. I blew 120 of my cold, clammy NEETbux on Hegel's Ladder, I'm reading Leibniz' Monadology as the first stepping stone to Kant even though I have to stop and re-read sections over and over until they click, I'm armed with stacks of secondary analysis and the texts themselves. I'm gonna do it if it takes me 20 years. I'm not letting my room temperature IQ stop me.
that's the spirit. good job anon.
>Hegel's Ladder
why is it so expensiver?
Proud of you anon.
It took me 12 years to come around to Hegel. He's fricking right.
dam straight
When you hear kitschy garbage music from a bygone era that immediately sounds dated and bad, that is because it has not achieved the universality proper to the concept. But when you hear an old masterpiece that still sounds as fresh as ever, then you know that it definitely has achieved universality.
>garbage music
like rap and hip hop?
Give Injury Reserve - By the Time I Get to Phoenix a listen before you write the whole genre off.
no thanks
for me it's the Baillie translation
>The Phenomenology of Mind
>mind
I haven't even read a page and already know this anglo has been filtered
false. it's better than the Miller translation.
if he translated 'geist' with 'mind' then he has seriously misinterpreted hegel
nope the spirit is nous
Mind and nous aren't the same, since nous refers to an intelect that establishes order within things, whereas mind refers to individual subjectivity. There's a clear relation between the two, but strictly speaking they definitely aren't the same.
Even then, nous isn't the same as spirit. Nous is but the universal, the idea in its inmaterial moment. On the other hand, spirit does contain the moment of universality, but it is precisely the movement between the universal, the particular and the singular. Nous is what always remains the same; spirit is the perpetual self overcoming of the same into negativity and its reconciliation with the same.