Conclusion:
The certainty found in Consciousness, is not merely pure immediacy, but due to the fact that the process of sense-experience and perception as a whole are related opposites, it is impossible to ever say what we truly “mean” , which seems to lead us to the same outcome as would pure immediacy.
“Consciousness has found “seeing” and “hearing”, etc., pass away in the dialectic process of sense-experience, and has, at the stage of perception, arrived at thoughts which, however, it brings together in the first instance in the unconditioned universal" (Pg. 63).
Premises:
1. A concrete certainty of sense is not merely pure immediacy, it is an example, an instance of that immediacy (pg. 55).
A. There exists a fundamental difference that in sense-experience pure being at once breaks up into two “thises”, the “I” and the “Object” (pg. 55)
B. Neither the “I” or the “Object” is merely immediate. Merely is in sense certainty but is at the same time mediated. (pg. 56).
C. Dialectic process (mediation), leads to discovery of simple entities (univerals) (pg. 56.).
2 . The Universal is in point of fact the truth of sense-certainty (pg.56)
A. Both the “I” and the “Object” are universals (pg. 57, 58)
B. Sense-Certainty in it’s nature proves the universal to be the truth of it’s object (pg. 57)
3. It is impossible to express in words any sensuous existence we mean (pg. 57)
A. Universals don’t answer what “This” or what “I” we mean (pg 58).
B. Language is a universal. We utter sensuous fact as universal (pg 56).
C. Universality is the real truth of sense certainty, and language merely
expresses this truth. (pg. 57).
4. The whole of sense certainty is it’s essential reality (pg.58).
A. The universal is a non-essential element (pg.58).
B. Both “I” and “Object” are universals, therefore, essential nature lies neither in “I” or the “Object” (pg. 58)
C. Certainty wholly refuses to come out if we direct its attention to an “Object” or an “I” (pg. 59).
D. It is only the whole of sense-certainty itself which persists as immediacy (pg. 58) .
E. Pure immediacy stands self-identical, no longer “mediated” (pg. 59)
5. Sense Certainty is simply the history of the dialectic process, which is the cause of us saying the opposite of what we truly mean (pg. 60, 61).
A. Pointing out is the way of getting to know, of experience, what is universal (pg. 60).
B. Act of pointing out proves to be a process not immediate knowledge (pg. 60).
C. Dialectic process involved in sense certainty, is just the mere history of its process. Therefore sense certainty is nothing else than simply this history (pg. 60).
D. Naïve consciousness for this reason , is of itself always coming to this result, but it always forgetting it again and begins the process again. (pg. 60).
E. Contrary to what one may say, the truth for consciousness of a “This” of sense is not the universal experience. “And in all sense-certainty what we find by experience is in truth merely, as we have seen, that “This” is a universal, the very opposite of what that assertion maintained to be universal experience (Pg. 61) “.
6. Both the “I” and the “Object”, that which perceives and that which is perceived, are in point of fact essential, but cannot be at the same time. (pg. 63).
A. The object is in it’s essential nature the same as the process (pg. 63).
B. For the “I”, tracing the process, the universal qua principle, is the essence of perception (pg. 63).
C. Both moments distinguished, as against the abstraction, are what is non-essential.(pg. 63).
D. Both in point of fact are universals (pg. 63).
E. Because the universal is the essence of sense certainty, both necessarily are essential (pg. 63).
F. But only one can be the essential moment at a time since they are both related opposites. Distinction of essential and non-essential must be shared (pg. 63)
I somewhat agree with you. However, remember that with sense certaintly it pretends to be immediate but in actuality once introduced to us it is no longer immediate and becomes part of our conciousness and mediated.
ReplyDeleteThis is a solid argument outline. Just be sure to take into stronger consideration Hegel's account of the uncertainty of sense-certainty and its relationship to understanding. While you do touch on this in your 5th premises, recall that it we do not merely say the opposite of what we mean. The difference between our perceptions and the meanings we give them lead to a process in which we generate new concepts to smooth over contradictions between the two. It is these concepts that integrate themselves into the dialectic process.
ReplyDeleteThough you state in your conclusion that sense-certainty and perception are related opposites I don't see any premise that deals directly with "perception" as per Hegel. Of course Hegel is rather sparse in his own defining of "perception" clearly. It seems that a definition for "perception" is more implicit than explicit in his writings. However, in Hegel's words "perception" maybe "a logically necessitated process that takes a universal for what exist"(p62-63).
ReplyDeleteCertainty can basically change in it's position from a raw material; a given point to becoming part of a new one which was formed as a result of it's combination with our conscious. This theory that Hegel introduced is a result of a process
ReplyDeleteThis process is one that started pure before any change which affected their perception or goal or even their logic which elaborated to a processed level different than the previous one but which includes any other precedent and the same process goes on until there is a final result inclusive of all in that specific time where it's still perceived to be unchanged.
Certainty therefore is perceived vis a vi ones evaluating conscious and provided raw material ( information)