George Cummins IV
Like many great and important philosophers, Hegel was strongly influenced by I. Kant. The magnificent role that Kant built upon Continental rationalism and British empiricism were reconciling the two mentioned epistemologies. Kant managed a synthetic relation between rational world of ideas and world of phenomena, the world of perception (“Things-in-themselves”). Arguing with the famous sentence: “What is real, is rational. What is rational, is real.”
This Absolute idealism is essentially related to Hegel's “Idea, or Spirit, or Mind.“
Hegel calls and classifieds all the experiences of rationalism under terminus universal; formalized into the abstract form, as a lifeless universal. The first philosophical school was talking about the major theme of “Being” for the very first time. This mere abstraction, is therefore negative, brings itself its negative if we look back on the basics of all rationalism and revolution during the time of Kant; the negation is similarly immediate aspect, it is “Nothing”. By abstracting away, the concreteness of actual experience, one is left with being, which is nothing. This process, the process of abstraction is also used by Hegel in phrase “doing away”.
Being and Nothing are thus identical, the truth of being and nothing is the unity of the two, which makes a trio – the unity is “Becoming”. Unity of becoming does not obliterate Being and nothing but holds both tension in a higher truth. This part of the contradiction, divided into two modes, thus this is what unites or overcomes (or even destruct) them, we can discover the general triad. This method of overcoming contradictions by moving to a higher level of truth is known as the Dialectic. Hegel's own special systematic logic divided from idea inspired by human history – never-ending development, a circle, but what more, a spiral; all functioning as a support and tool for development of Hegelian vision, and proofs as well.
The dialectical system of reality are three foundational triad of being:
The “Other” is an acknowledgement of the self-consciousness of the possibility, but if there is the Other, the original self-consciousness feels threaten, but certainly the master supposes to be the subject. Requires absolute freedom and domination, but more problems will be explained later on this point. It asserts it and is trying by domination in mode of a master and servant. But most important is a fact that the ensuing struggle results in a master who dominates, and a servant who is dominated. The very master abstracts its forces, but the servant is producing material of goods for the enjoyment of the master. (!)
At this point, master is slowly becoming to be depended upon the servant he has dominated.
1. First, on this place, master depends upon the servant, while the master has been consuming or destructing what servant makes, thus the servant had been learning to create...to bend nature into his own will.
2. Establishing his own self-consciousness and suddenly, the roles are slowly changing.
Through being in-and-for-itself is existing for abstraction for other consciousness. Just a “something” is recognized from a part of something. The mentioned conception of double or trio-unity, now the unity of self-consciousness in its duplication, of the realizing itself in self-consciousness, is many-sided and many-sensed complex. Carefully apart or at the same time taken and understood in its differentiation, not as a distinct, or always in their opposed sense.
The double senselessness of that what is distinguished: Lies in the essence of self-consciousness, in many sides and many sensed complexes. The distinction must be holden carefully apart or at the same time taken and understood in its differentiation and possibly keep on mind. Distinct, always in opposite sense. The double senselessness of what is distinguished lies in the essence of self-consciousness, of being infinitive – or boundless: that means that immediately the contrary of the determination, in which it is established. One self-consciousness for the other, thus it come outside-itself. We can with a clean mind now continue in basics hierarchy. The two-fold significance of this mode problem is:
1. IT HAS DONE WITH THE OTHER, FOR IT DOES NOT SEE THE OTHER EITHER; becomes independent abstraction overcoming mode in order to become certain of itself. SECONDLY: in doing so it sets out to “do away with itself”, for this other being, is itself. This double sensed “doing away” with its double otherness is equally to double sensed return to itself. Specifically, into itself. The first time through doing away it gets itself back, for it becomes more equal to itself through doing away (act of an abstraction) with its otherness. And here the second part of this doubleness, is a moment of lack of giving back the other self-consciousness to the latter again, perhaps it had itself for the other – it does away with this being, it has in the other, thus letting the other go free again.
This movement is taking the position of self-consciousness, in its relation to another self-consciousness (doing the one, contains two-fold significance):
1.) Its reaction as a doing away of the Other, for the Other is no less independent, it's shut up within itself, nothing in it what is doing itself.
1. The first self-consciousness does not have the object before as he later to begin with the merely for desire, but an independent object, existing for itself. Thus, we can ask a question: “What self-consciousness does it with it?” - Because the movement is thus in all respect the double movement of both of those self-consciousness.
Each sees the other one, do the same as it does, do inasmuch as the other a one-sided doing would thus be unavailing, because what is intended should occur, can be more about only through both.