Self-Consciousness and Self-Certainty (166-177)
In the course of The Phenomenology, Consciousness reaches a point in its dialectical development to discover Absolute truth where it becomes aware of itself. This awareness is simply an understanding of consciousness as a subject that is alive. This is when Consciousness experiences itself as conscious of itself. This is the emergence of Self-Consciousness. As Kalkavage points out, Self-Consciousness is the explanation of Consciousness; a viewer that can look and reflect upon Consciousness (Kalkavage 86). In this way, for Self-Consciousness, it (Consciousness/itself) becomes its own object. Hegel defines this relationship through the statement “I = I”. Self-Consciousness becomes aware of itself. In being aware of itself, it becomes its own object. Self-Consciousness divides within itself a difference between subject and object, but this differentiation does not last, and in fact is cancelled immediately, for there is no difference at all. What Self-Consciousness attempts to distinguish from itself is only itself. At the present moment, Self-Consciousness only has the idea that it can be certain about itself as the Absolute and as independent. Self-Consciousness needs to posit itself so as to create real difference from which it can create lasting self-certainty.
Self-Consciousness comes on the scene at a stage in Consciousness’s development where it previously had relationships with the outside world where it was the subject (Sense-Certainty, Perception, Understanding). Self-Consciousness does not lose these, but rather gains a new object, itself. In this way, Self-Consciousness has for it a double-object: itself and a world external to it. The world outside of Self-Consciousness is filled with objects that to it are negative (something opposed to or contradictory to it: recall subject-object distinctions in Sense-Certainty and Perception, the That-which-is-not-I). Through this, Self-Consciousness not only sees objects in the world as negative, but it sees itself as the negator; it is the means by which objects are negated. This is one instance where Self-Consciousness recognizes its own life and in its awareness of itself, is also aware that it is alive. Life for Self-Consciousness must be perpetuated naturally, and it is done through the negation of the otherness of objects, and making them a part of Self-Consciousness. The reaching out for the perpetuation of its own life is referred to as Desire. Desire to Hegel is pure negation and means by which Self-Consciousness exists for-itself. Self-Consciousness sees its Truth as Desire, with the ultimate object of Desire being Self-Consciousness’s living body. Desire at this stage Hegel refers to as Natural Desire. Natural Desire is the desire to preserve the living body and one’s own life. This is done through the simple life processes: eating, drinking, pleasure, etc. In this way, Desire is how Self-Consciousness comes in contact with other objects in the world.
When encountering an object that is other through Desire (for instance an item of food, e.g., an apple), in a way, Self-Consciousness posits its self-certainty, or attempts to affirm itself to be True/Absolute. In attempting to satisfy hunger and prove its own existence through it, Self-Consciousness finds an object that is other than itself that will satisfy said hunger, i.e. an apple. This apple is an object that is other and independent of Self-Consciousness, and in eating it, the object becomes Nothing (it ceases to exist as it previously was). This nothing now becomes what Self-Consciousness believes to be the Truth of this object, and in doing so, has proven its certainty of being Absolute. Unfortunately, this satisfaction does not remain, for Self-Consciousness will experience the Desire that is hunger again, and in doing so, has shown that this independent object as an apple was insignificant in being able to give it lasting self-certainty. Now Self-Consciousness is again at where it started with being unable to prove its self-certainty, but it has gained something from this defeat. It now knows that only an other that is lasting and equal to it (another Self-Consciousness) can provide it the true satisfaction of self-certainty.
Hegel posits that in this way Self-Consciousness exists for another Self-Consciousness. This is the only way in which Self-Consciousness can attain self-certainty, for the negation that will bring it about must be true self-negation (a negation that is a true contradiction and equal to what was posited: i.e., one Self-Consciousness and another Self-Consciousness). In this way Hegel is hinting at the process by which Self-Consciousness will attain its self-certainty in the next section, that being Recognition. Recognition is not just an act of seeing, but rather a way in which a self sees itself within an other. I will elaborate more on that process in the next section.
Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness (178-196)
Recognition, defined by Hegel, is a process of “actualization of self-otherness”. All that this means is that when a Self-Consciousness encounters another Self-Consciousness, The previous attempt to posit self-certainty (I = I) is actualized, or made concrete. For in this statement, Self-Consciousness is aware of itself, making it both subject and object (itself is the object of its own focus as a subject). While this distinction previously remained internal, it is now actualized by the other Self-Consciousness taking the place of the object. In this way, Self-Consciousness sees itself within another that is the same as itself (another Self-Consciousness). In this description, I have only described the way in which one Self-Consciousness experiences another Self-Consciousness. It is important to note that because there are two Self-Consciousness, there are two parallel experiences. This “two-way street” of recognition brings truth to the claim, there are no one-sided relations. Recognition is a shared experience.
Due to there being two Self-Consciousnesses, the relationship between them is fairly ambiguous. For the first sees itself in the second, while the second sees itself in the first. Because of this, if one Self-Consciousness was to supersede the other, making it the essential being (a being that is for-itself and the Absolute source of the world and subjectivity) and giving truth to its self-certainty, it supersedes its own self, for the other is itself. Similar to the experience of eating the apple (the fulfilment of natural Desire), when the other Self-Consciousness is superseded, the first will “return back to itself” in the same way it did when eating the apple (it returns to itself now with the, temporary, knowledge of itself as Absolute). But at the same time, the other Self-Consciousness gives the first self-certainty in the simple act of Recognition. This ambiguity that Self-Consciousness is faced with becomes the primary issue that it must now face.
Self-Consciousness will now wage a battle against this other Self-Consciousness as its attempt to prove itself to be the essential being by transcending its immediacy. The immediacy of which Self-Consciousness has in mind is its bodily existence. Risking this is an act of positing its Absolute character. This fight turns out to be a fool’s errand, for at the end of it, there is a victor and a loser, the loser being dead. Now, with only one Self-Consciousness remaining, Self-Consciousness only attains the vapid self-certainty of Natural Desire, that in fact is not self-certainty. Because of this, there can be no direct winner or loser, one Self-Consciousness must value its being-for-self (Life) over Recognition of the other. With one Self-Consciousness forfeiting Recognition, the other is Recognized. The Self-Consciousness who gives recognition becomes a dependent object to the other Self-Consciousness who becomes independent. Through this, there now emerges a Master-Slave relationship between the two Self-Consciousnesses.
In this relationship, the Master is a Self-Consciousness that exists for-itself (it is independent), while the Slave is a Self-Consciousness that exists for-another (is dependent). Through this relationship, the slave works on things and performs work for the master, making its relationship to the master truly being for it. As a result of this, the master’s independence is mediated through the work of the slave. The work of the slave becomes a very important thing however. For this is truly a formative action, as opposed to pure negation of Natural Desire. The work of the slave transforms things into other things, but keeping them as concrete. The objects of work remain independent objects rather than being annihilated as the consumed apple was previously. Through this work, the slave is provided enjoyment/fulfilment. In fact, the master, as opposed to the slave, still embodies the state of natural desire, being the sole receptor of things that satisfy the immediate desires.
The Master gained its recognition in the Slave, but through this relationship, this recognition does not last, for it is not mutual. The slave has become solely an object to the Master, hiding his independent Self-Consciousness by making him dependent. The Master thus fails to have its self-certainty proven by another independent Self-Consciousness.
In choosing Life, the Slave, in a way, acknowledges Death as the Absolute master. Through its work and transformation of the world around it, the slave begins to become conscious of what it truly is, a being-for-self in its own right. Through the Slave’s work and fear of Death, the Slave discovers itself to be a negative element of the world. By seeing itself in the work and independent objects of said work, the Slave finds itself again, bringing it to be its own being-for-self.
Freedom of Self-Consciousness
Stoicism, Skepticism, and the Unhappy Consciousness (197-230)
Through the combination of service, fear, and work, Self-Consciousness is able to posit itself as a negative element in the world and begins to understand itself as a thinking Self-Consciousness. In this transition from servitude and being the object for another Self-Consciousness, the Slave now discovers a newfound freedom, that being the freedom of thought. Through fear and work, the Slave returns into herself only to discover the independence that she has in the objects of her work. This independence does not mean that the Slave has been freed from servitude, rather that the Slave, in returning into herself, has recognized her mind as having unbound freedom. This freedom arises from a deeper understanding of the Slave’s epiphany in regard to the objects of its work. The acknowledgement that objects exist in themselves, and for Self-Consciousness. In other words, the true substance of things is their relation to a thinking Self-Consciousness (Kalkavage 128). This unity is where the Stoic comes into the fold. The Stoic understands this unity and takes it to the extreme. For the Stoic, freedom is thinking. In thinking, the Stoic is free due to her gaze not being on an object outside of herself, but rather inside of herself. The Stoic is always with herself in her mind, and things in the world outside of herself exist as objects for the Stoic’s being-for-self. Unfortunately, Hegel is quick to note that the Stoic begins tripping up at this very unity. The unity of object and subject which the Stoic claims, is only an immediate unity, or one that appears true, but does not last. For the Stoic has no means by which she can prove her assertion that thinking and being are the same. In this way, Stoic freedom is only abstract freedom, or the freedom of thought, and not that of the living reality that freedom can be. The claims of the Stoic can’t hold water, they remain an incomplete negation of otherness (201). If the Stoic were to push her claims of otherness being nothing in-itself further, she would arrive at a more profound truth than her current claim. For the Stoic’s understanding of the outside world as non-essential to the subject is an incomplete Concept needing verification that true negation can provide. Stoicism falls into the same trap as the Self-Consciousness’s first attempts at Self-Certainty. Self-Consciousness lacks content within itself to make objective Stoicism’s claim. This is where the Skeptic emerges on the stage.
The Skeptic shows itself to be the Truth of Stoicism, and for Hegel, exemplifies what real freedom of thought can be (202). The Skeptic is negation incarnate (to use a weird turn of phrase). Thinking can only be real for the Skeptic as long as it provides concrete negation of otherness. This is the role of the Skeptic. Through annihilating otherness, the Skeptic proves the world in-itself to really be nothing. Kalkavage aids in adding that the Skeptic can be understood as a fighter of dogmatism. The only certain truth for the Skeptic is that nothing is certain (Kalkavage 133). Through the Skeptic, dialectical unrest is manifest as Desire. Unfortunately for the Skeptic, the content which this Desire seeks is nothing. In this way, the content and self-identity of the Skeptic becomes nothing. In this, the Skeptic embodies the very dogmatism they seek to destroy. The skeptic ends with a negation and leaves it as that. This creates a very apparent divide within Self-Consciousness where it identifies itself as both a separate and individual consciousness, and a consciousness that is self-identical and universal (while pronouncing a dogma that obliterates aspects of animal life, the Skeptic is still partaking in them). Here the Skeptic begins to see herself as internally contradictory. Hegel claims that the Skeptic is fully aware of this division and inherent contradiction. I am skeptical myself (no pun intended) to the degree by which the Skeptic can be “fully aware” of this contradiction. This contradiction splits apart Self-Consciousness’s self-identity, which it yearns to be fixed. The remains of Skepticism become the foundations for what Hegel refers to as the unhappy consciousness. The division within itself that Self-Consciousness grasps is the living rift that is the Unhappy Consciousness. I am curious to the degree by which there even is a divide between the Skeptic and the Unhappy Consciousness. In a way, I see the Unhappy Consciousness as a more honest version of the Skeptic, for not a whole lot changed between these two shapes or Gestalt. But rather, that the former (UC) is simply the understanding of the truth of the Skeptic. So maybe it is in that very recognition that there is a shift at all.
As mentioned above, the Unhappy Consciousness emerges from the rift within the Skeptic. The Skeptic inadvertently asserts two individual consciousnesses: one that is above all and essential (an embodiment of pure negativity that can destroy dogma), and one that is unessential and subject to the very dogmas it seeks to destroy. The Unhappy Consciousness becomes the very recognition of this fact and understands itself as a dual-natured and contradictory being.
The Unhappy Consciousness is the most recent manifestation of humankind’s alienation. The Unhappy Consciousness is the dissociation of one from her pure being-for-self, or I=I. This results from the very dual-nature of Self-Consciousness at this point in time. In a way, the Unhappy Consciousness is the internalized dialectic that is the Master and Slave. The Slave is embodied as the Changeable, or the unessential aspect of consciousness, while the Master is the Unchangeable or essential aspect of consciousness. The Unhappy Consciousness identifies itself as the changeable and unessential, while the Unchangeable remains outside itself or Beyond. It is important to note that the Unhappy Consciousness is the internalized unity of these two consciousnesses in one. In evoking the word Beyond, Hegel is referring to a Heaven like realm, where the Unchangeable ultimately resides or could be located, unable to be reached or even fully comprehended by humans/Consciousness. Beyond is the unattainable desire of The Unhappy Consciousness or Self-Consciousness in general.
The Unhappy Consciousness is the truth of Self-Consciousness. The Unhappy Consciousness has been lurking in the background since Consciousness posited itself as an independent being-for-self. As we will see, in Hegel’s eyes, reconciliation is the only way in which this divide can be bridged, and it will not come easily or quickly. Self-Consciousness is aware of this and wallows in its inability to truly be united with the Beyond aspect of itself. It may be helpful to understand the Unchangeable as a divine God-like figure, but it may also simply be represented by pure knowledge or absolute Truth that is posited to exist “out there” in the world in some capacity.
The Unhappy Consciousness has three stages within itself that it must pass through to create any attempt at reconciliation with the Beyond. It begins by struggling for a union through the unchangeable as something that is incarnate or has taken shape through feeling. In what is known as “an inward disposition of the feeling heart”, the Unhappy Consciousness attempts to look into itself to find its connection with the unchangeable through pure feeling as opposed to thinking. Unfortunately for the Unhappy Consciousness, the unchangeable is not reached so easily. When Self-Consciousness turns into itself, it finds not the unchangeable, but a thinking individual (itself). This individual, which is still seen as unessential, cannot be united with the unchangeable unless the unchangeable too is self-conscious and individual.
In returning into itself and “finding” itself, the similarity with the Master and Slave dialectic becomes stark. The pure feeling that was yearned in the first stage was really just a pure feeling of the Unhappy Consciousness as a Self-Consciousness for itself. With this, it has in a sense rediscovered itself and attempts to retain this certainty through desire and work, natural aspects of self-consciousness. Hegel points out that this certainty is not evident for Self-Consciousness. It is not yet aware of the fact that simply desiring and working implies that it is certain of itself. The Unhappy Consciousness now finds itself as a desiring and working individual that is within the world of the unchangeable. This new relationship to the unchangeable is a direct way in which the Unhappy Consciousness attempts to overcome its alienation. For within a world stamped and molded by the unchangeable, working on and changing said world becomes the next way in which the Unhappy Consciousness attempts to unite itself.
Unfortunately, this unity also fails to reconcile the disconnect. For the world now becomes “broken”. The world is both something separate from the unchangeable (a nothing), and an embodiment of the unchangeable. So rather than create a truly transformed world, all the Unhappy Consciousness is capable of doing is playing around in a world already pre-given. On top of that, the faculties and abilities of the Unhappy Consciousness as a human individual are, as Hegel puts it, “a gift from an alien source” (220). In this way, working and desiring in the world fails to become a concrete way in which the two aspects of the Unhappy Consciousness can be wed.
The previous attempts at reconciliation with the unchangeable have failed, and in fact they have done more than that. Not only does the Unhappy Consciousness remain divided, but it has, through this process, truly confirmed its self-certainty, making it even farther from the unchangeable which it posits Beyond itself. The final attempt at reconciliation will be the closest to success, and that is of self-surrender. Self-surrender is not an individual act, and is only completed through a mediator with the unchangeable. This mediator is not necessarily a third term between the contradictory moments of changeable and unchangeable, but the mediator is seen as an embodiment of the truth of the Beyond/God. In Hegel’s example, the mediator is a priest which represents God’s will on Earth and has a connection to God while remaining an individual himself. The priest as mediator receives the hard being-for-self of the Unhappy Consciousness along with her particular inwardness that separated her from God/Beyond. In giving up her particular will, it has been exchanged for a universal will, and one that will be embodied further as Self-Consciousness shifts to the next shape. It can only be through a mediator that the Unhappy Consciousness can recognize its relation to the unchangeable due to the mediator making this relation much more stark. Through this relationship and surrender of particularity, the Unhappy Consciousness becomes the first embodiment of Reason. The Concept of this being, that Self-Consciousness has being absolutely within itself and is all of reality.
Alienation Nation 