Comment by iunoionnis on 08/07/2019 at 16:50 UTC

23 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: a Couple Questions

Any prerequisite books?

If you want to grasp the *Phenomenology* to the fullest extend, there are a lot of prerequisite books. If you just want to get your journey with Hegel started, the *Critique of Pure Reason* is a must, the *Critique of Judgment* is super helpful, and the *Critique of Practical Reason* or some background in Kant's moral philosophy will also be eventually needed.

However, you will also generally need a strong background in the history of philosophy, as well as in history and classics generally, to get the most out of Hegel.

What is this book trying to accomplish?

The book describes the journey of the natural, uneducated consciousness through various shapes of consciousness to the point of absolute knowing. Each section discusses a general "shape" of consciousness. Think of it as a claim about what knowing is, a theory of cognition. Hegel will begin by describing how cognition looks from the vantage point of this type of knowing, and then we will observe what happens when consciousness at this stage of knowing attempts to become aware of itself. When consciousness becomes aware of itself (i.e. "self-conscious), we usually find out that there's more going on in the shape of knowing than we thought, which shifts us to the next stage of knowing.

These shapes are organized according to their "logical" ordering, not their historical emergence, yet these shapes have appeared throughout the history of philosophy, society, and art, and so there will be references throughout the *Phenomenology* that require knowledge of the humanities.

The goal of the *Phenomenology* is to reach "Absolute Knowing," a shape of consciousness where, putting it simply, we cannot go further to a higher stage of knowing because the shape of knowing matches its concept (it is what we take it to be), i.e. our consciousness (the immediate attempt at cognition) matches our self-consciousness (our reflective attempt to observe ourselves in the process of knowing).

In Kantian terms, "absolute knowing" is the point where we cannot think of the possibility of anything beyond the limits of our reason, thus eliminating the gap in Kantian philosophy between the knowable and the merely thinkable.

What are the key insights?

When reading the *Phenomenology*, you get to practice struggling with one of the most difficult texts in philosophy, but you also learn a style of thinking that pushes you to be in no way one-sided. Hegelian philosophy, in a nutshell, tries to not think about anything in a one-sided manner, and if you survive the immersion in the the Bacchanalian revel, it will incredibly sharpen your thinking.

In terms of Hegel's system, the *Phenomenology* removes any threats of skepticism, limitations of reason, or "thing in-itself" worries, thereby paving the way for the *Science of Logic*.

You can think of it as a series of skeptical arguments that are then turned on their head to generate a new result. It's also worth mentioning that the *Science of Logic* itself (Hegel's system) also consists of what appear to be skeptical arguments, but a skepticism that turns itself around into a positive result.

When you first read Hegel, you sometimes feel that the whole thing is Hegel criticizing various positions as one-sided for one reason or another, and you wonder when Hegel will get to what he thinks. Yet Hegelian philosophy is the system that contains all of these one-sided positions in an interconnected totality, including the various skeptical moments we encounter along the way.

Is there any terms that I should better understand that will make reading this book easier?

The terms "in-itself" and "for-itself" can be read as "implicit" and "explicit" if you are in a pinch and just trying to make sense of a passage. Sometimes, they are not translated directly, so keep the German nearby. In-itself and for-itself have more technical meanings, but you can worry about them when needed. For-consciousness, I believe, is used more than "for-itself" in the PoS, but the difference is basically between what's "implicit" in a form of cognition versus what consciousness is aware of "for itself" when attempting to become self-conscious of itself.

I heard it was written in quite a haste. Does that mean he contradicts himself at any point throughout the book?

Once you start reading, you will see that this is unlike any philosophy book you have ever read. For Hegel to contradict himself, there would have to be a position that Hegel puts forth and says "this is what I think." But that's not Hegel. Hegel is "let's start with this basic philosophical position of immediate cognition and watch as it contradicts itself, turns into its opposite, and then cancels out this opposition to reach a higher, more encompassing position."

Is there any good "cheat sheets" to better understand this book? I don't know what would be qualify as a cheat sheet but if there is any resources that helped you while starting to understand Hegel? Any good videos on Hegel that speaks in easy language that you find useful?

I would get Peter Kalkavages' *Logic of Desire* as a guide, unless you plan to spend the next four years working on only Hegel and things related to Hegel. It's super clear and saves you a lot of the interpretive work, while at the same time aiming to introduce the reader to understand Hegel for themselves.

Use H.S. Harris' *Hegel's Ladder* when you need to find answers. It's a giant line-by-line commentary on the whole of the *Phenomenology*.

I have been confused about the notion of Spirit itself.

• Geist* in German is the word for "mind," yet the word "mind" carries very different historical baggage in English. In German, the *Geisteswissenschaften* are the "sciences of spirit" and are basically the humanities (history, philosophy, literature, etc.). They are distinguished from the *Naturwissenschaften* (natural sciences, sciences of nature). When Hegel contrasts Spirit with Nature, he's basically contrasting the realm studied by the humanities with the realm studied by the sciences. "Sciences of Mind," in English, doesn't carry this connotation, and sounds like it's talking about something like psychology.

The word "mind," in English, also usually indicates *one mind*. In German, however, *Geist* doesn't necessarily mean something that's located within the brain of an individual, although it can mean this and Hegel does talk about brains and such in connection with *Geist*. At the same time, *Geist* is nothing spooky. It's not a "world spirit" magically controlling shit from the sky.

• Geist*, for Hegel, is what he calls a "concrete universal." Normally, we think of universals as containers that hold individuals. A concrete universal, however, is much more like the relationship between "I" and "We." There's a difference between saying that each "I" falls underneath the universal concept called "I" and that each "I" falls underneath the universal concept "We," and Hegel understands the Concept of Spirit along similar lines to the relationship between "I" and "We." Every individual is an "I" like every other "I." When an "I" becomes a "We," however, there's a much more complex logical relationship at work, one that would require a ton of Hegelian logical jargon to fully explain, but simply put, this is the kind of relationship Hegel also has in mind with spirit. Spirit is an "I" (I personally have a mind, can write books and do math, think with concepts, etc.), yet also a "we" (throughout human history, we have discovered things, produced literature, thought with concepts, etc.). So it's this kind of duality, where the "We" includes each "I" (who remain I's within the We), yet also elevates each "I" to the level of a "We."

Also, as /u/Grundlage pointed out: read the *Preface* last.

Replies

Comment by CutieBK at 08/07/2019 at 20:02 UTC

1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Holy hell, this is a thorough and consise answer. Much credit to you for taking the time to write this. Thank you!