Hegel Questions

Paragraph on page 10: Consciousness, Self-Consciousness, Desire, what are they?

• Consciousness: Recognition or awareness of an object
• Self-Consciousness: A full understanding of who you are - awareness of self
• Desire: the practical activity of negating objects, ‘In Hegel’s own words, the origin of desire is thus the fact that “self-consciousness is . . . essentially the return from otherness.”’ - how we get to self-consciousness?

Paragraph 2 on p.10 - What does it remind you of?
Hume - sensory perception is only way to attain this self-consciousness

p.11 “sensous certainty” to “absolute knowing” -define

• sensuous certainty - consciousness from its most primitive or naïve form
• absolute knowing - consciousness in its most mature form = self-consciouness

p.11, “this, here, now”, “many nows, many heres”

• time is a series of individual immediacies
• consciousness and time are intertwined
• through perception you gain self-consciousness

p.11 “perception ceases and becomes understanding”

• this is the maturation of consciousness into self-consciousness
• “Perception ends up distinguishing between the manifold character and the inner unity of the object. As soon as it regards its object as having an inner unity, however, it ceases to be mere perception and becomes understanding”
• Perception is an attempt to grasp a concept, object, anything
• Understanding is a state of consciousness
• It’s like an enlightenment
• Pure, internalized, comprehension

p.13 - Unity of the one with itself

• “Note that what we desire, in Hegel’s view, is not the object as such, but rather, as Jean Hyppolite puts it, “the unity of the I with itself.” If Hegel is right, in seeking to enjoy the object, we are in fact seeking to enjoy ourselves.”

top of p.15 bottom of 1st Paragraph

• ‘The logic of self-consciousness demands, however, that we achieve self-certainty in relating to objects that retain their independence from us. We can satisfy this demand only by relating to an object that negates itself but that is “equally independent in this negativity of itself.” Such an object, Hegel maintains, cannot merely be a living thing (or an inorganic object), but must be another consciousness or self- consciousness. Consequently, “self-consciousness achieves its satisfaction only in another self-consciousness.”’

Last 2 paragraphs of page 17

• Hegel truly believes that genuine, mutual recognition is possible, but almost all post-Hegelians disagree and state that it is, at most, simply idealist, and can be viewed a a moral ideal in an essentially imperfect world
• saying that Hegel is too optimistic - believes in the good in people

“Intersubectivity” - page 18

• only enlightened people have a lack of social conflict
• mutual recognitions of self-consciousnesses

Page 19, 4th paragraph down, “mutual....”

• ‘Mutual recognition, for Hegel, requires the uncoerced cooperation of the two (or more) self-consciousnesses involved. Indeed, not only must the two self- consciousnesses freely recognize one another; in fact, they must both recognize that their mutual recognition and cooperation is needed for either to be concretely and objectively self-conscious. In Hegel’s own words, they must “recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.”’
• pretty self-explanatory

How is the entire world contained in this piece of paper?

Mr. Summers asked us an interesting question last class, while holding up a plain piece of blank, white, printer paper - "How is the entire world contained in this piece of paper?"

And honestly, I don't know the answer.

If I would have to guess, I would say that it is something involving the fact that the paper is blank - there is absolutely nothing written on it. Therefore, it has pure potentiality. Which is kinda like the whole world - there is unlimited potential to achieve anything we want, anything we desire, and anything we can even imagine. Which is absolutely incredible!

But that's just my take on it.

Websites to read for hw - 10/25/11

1. http://files.meetup.com/299745/hegel%20descartes%20marx.pdf

2. http://www.matthewtgrant.com/2010/06/09/the-web-of-intentions/

Three items that I want right now, in 6 months, and in 5 years

New shoes

Graduate

Switzerland

I chose each of these because:
1. New shoes - my current running shoes are about 3-4 months old and have approximately 5 sizable holes in them. Some new ones would be much appreciated - and much more comfy. There are a representation of my self-consciousness because they show my passion, as well as commitment to running.

2. Graduate- I want to graduate in six months. That would be ideal. It's not really a fear that I wouldn't be able to, but it is a nice thought to know that I will. I think this represents my self-consciousness because it demonstrates my love of knowledge, and my goal of pursuing further education.

3. Switzerland! - This is where I want to be in 5 years. I am currently applying to Franklin College Switzerland, which is my top choice. It would be absolutely amazing to me if I got in, and I think this is why it represents part of my self-consciousness, because it shows how much I want to travel, and learn about foreign cultures, and languages, etc.

Read the beginning of this article

http://psg275.bham.ac.uk/personal/braithwaitej/Critical%20Thinkingv6.pdf

Quote of the day!

Every age has its own poetry; in every age the circumstances of history choose a nation, a race, a class to take up the torch by creating situations that can be expressed or transcended only through poetry. 
-Jean-Paul Sartre

How terribly sad it was that people are made in such a way that they get used to something as extraordinary as living.

Jostein Gaarder

Reflection on Kierkegaard vs Nietzsche debate

Firstly, I'm going to post my question and response on my blog.

What is the most fundamental aspect of the human condition?
We’ve defined the human condition as the experiences of being human. So then, Nietzsche asks, What motivates us as human beings? What wills us to do things?
The Will to Power. This is broken down into 3 parts.
Will to Power:

• Primal Will - The primal will is all about CHOICE. It is the basis of consciousness. This was influenced by Schopenhauer’s emphasis on will, specifically of the "will to live". This primal will allows us to exist. Example: you choose to be born.
• Child’s Will - Born from the primal will, b/c we cannot isolate the will, the Child’s will is all about survival. Individual self-affirmation over doubt. “the spirit now will’s its own will” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) “sacred yes of the child”; saying yes to life
• Will to Power - The final “stage”, the will to power is about looking to achieve the ability to be powerful in all situations. You are the master of your own destiny (which is motivated by your want for power)

The person who achieves this will to power, has done so through conscious action.
We’ll touch on this later, but the “good” and “bad”, the “master and slave” morality which we’ll get to later is all about the good having this “will to power” and the bad not having it, and thus wanting it.
In conclusion, Mr. Summers said that "We either do or we do not," a very concise way of saying that we are given a choice (primal will) and then we must make a decision (a child's will). This leads to the will to power.

That was my response to our first question.

In reflection about both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard though, I feel that it is almost odd to debate them, as they aren't exactly opposites of each other. True, they each have different methods for thinking about the human condition, with Nietzsche thinking of the Will to Power and Kierkegaard thinking about his atheistic, ethical, and faith stages (the teleological suspension of the ethical), but I feel as if the main point of contention is just that - how they deal with this "fear and trembling" that comes with being human. However, the methods in which they deal with it aren't directly opposing. Nietzsche is focusing on the present, on the Dionysian pleasure, while Kierkegaard is focusing on attempting to escape this suffering through religion. They are both just simply existentialists who have different opinions on the role that religion should play in the daily life of the average human.

Critical Reading of an Essay's Argument

I'm going to try to bring this up in class.

Critical Reading of an Essay's Argument:

'via Blog this'

Notes From a Dragon Mom - NYTimes.com

Reading this article actually connects both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's existentialist philosophies, and makes me see and understand how they relate to my own life.

Notes From a Dragon Mom - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Digital Nation

I'll create this when we finish the video......

List of classmate's websites

http://philosophyramblings.wordpress.com/
http://anne-philosophyblog.blogspot.com/
http://philogibberish.blogspot.com/
http://perhapssomephilosophicalthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://lifeintherabbitfur.blogspot.com/
http://alexstephanson.blogspot.com/
http://hothemcity.blogspot.com/
http://thinkingblog.tumblr.com/
http://japhilosophy.blogspot.com/ ( need to be invited to this one!)
http://kdvallejos.blogspot.com/
http://nomkasworld.tumblr.com/
http://lgphilosophy.blogspot.com/
http://21centuryphilosopher.blogspot.com/

All these people are fantastic!! :)

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides debate

Since I was not there last week for our debate on Heraclitus vs. Parmenides, I'm going to state how I would have argued a few points for each of them.
1. The issue of change.

• Heraclitus argues that there is ever-present change in the universe, as stated in his famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice".  (this idea of universal flux)
• Parmenides, on the other hand, would state that change is impossible because nothing can come from nothing, and that existence is necessarily eternal. - Existence is timeless.

2. "Unity of Opposites"

• Heraclitus believed in the unity of opposites, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same", all existing things being characterized by pairs of contrary properties.
• Parmenides would stalk about the unity of nature and its variety, as discussed in his only known work, a poem entitled, On Nature.

3. Logos -

• Heraclitus and Parmenides would actually agree on the importance of logos. Heraclitus would apply it more to his idea of universal flux, and would say that everything is in accordance with logos in a constantly-shifting world. Parmenides would say that the logos is the only true method of discovering the truth, because sensory perceptions (the doxa) can be deceptive. 

Descartes point of view during the argument

So, if I was Descartes, arguing against Hume, I would have hammered home my method of doubt even more, turning Hume's favorite question, "How do you know?" back on Hume. I would have said, there is no way to know anything for sure, thus, you must doubt anything. "How do you know?" - I am a thinking substance, but all your senses can deceive you, you don't know ANYTHING for certain. Using your inductive reasoning, you can only make uncertain knowledge, only form assumptions about anything. There is no deductive reasoning, no certainty anywhere. Lastly, Hume's statement, "Reason is the slave of the passions" is ludicrous, because there is no pure passion, there is only logical and rational reasoning, which comes first and foremost before all emotions.

Reflection on Hume versus Descartes

Thinking back on the debate we had on Friday of Hume vs. Descartes, first, I thought that it was a fantastic experience. I unfortunately wasn't there for our first debate of the year on Monday, so I'm glad we had another one this soon. I also felt that every single person really contributed something of importance, and that each group really worked together very well. A few things from the debate were very poignant to me. These would be:
1. The Cogito Proof that Jasmine and Karen presented - This was the argument that Descartes initial assumption, "I think" is, in itself, flawed. This is because Descartes truly does not know whether or not he really exists. Yes, I know, he feels that the fact that he is a rational, thinking substance, is something which can pass his "method of doubt," but in reality, it cannot. Everything is doubtable.
This really leads me to think what the purpose of life is. Because if everything is doubtable, then what is your purpose in life? What is the point if you can never determine what is real, what is completely objective to everything else?
However, as I'm typing this, I came across the thought, is love doubtable? Which I do not know the answer to.....which is disquieting. I feel as if an emotion that strong should pass the "method of doubt" test.
Maybe I'm just a solipsist.