Hegel: § 40-45

Conclusion:

The differences between subjectivity and objectivity are useful only insofar as the mere being of an object is being related to us via sensation or thought, but are meaningless when thoughts extend from us to actually constitute the object in itself. This extension is what helps us begin to discern the content of that object, examining it for its own sake as opposed to considering its treatment as subjective or objective.

“It does no good to the things to say merely that they have being…we are chiefly interested in knowing what a thing is: i.e., its content, which is no more objective than it is subjective.” (151)

Premises:

1. Thoughts, as well as categories, are to some extent objective in that they exist outside sensation through universality but are also subjective in that they reflect what is felt (148).

            a. Kant attributes knowledge of the objects of categories (as appearances) to the Ego, in which the mind is the subject that unifies experienced phenomena to reach its own personally inclusive identity (151).

            b. Following from Kant, while categories are universal and necessary, they nonetheless exist only for us and give no insight into objects in themselves, which are alienated from our knowledge (148).

            c. If thoughts are confined to our own being, then the nature or constitution of an object will remain indeterminate.

2. The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity with regards to categories is only useful in determining that something is, and its relationship with other objects.

            a. The mere existence of that object, rather than its content, is being referenced to either in sensation (subjective grounds) or in thought (objective grounds).

3. Categories’ being a part of thought does not necessarily imply that the categories are not indicative of the characteristics of their corresponding objects (151).

4. The content of these objects can begin to be illuminated if thought extends beyond us to comprise the very nature of objects, and such an extension of thought grants the possibility of defining our relationship with what they are.

            a. There is a point of utility in knowing the content of an object and its truth, rather than only admitting that the object exists, which neither benefits the object nor us (151).

            b. The issues of subjectivity and objectivity do not highlight the relationship among the contents of the objects themselves.