Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:
101.
ARGUMENT:
what does experience tell us about its reality in the 'I'?
the force of its truth lies in the immediacy of the experience
the I holds the single now and here fast
I, this 'I' sees the tree and asserts that 'Here' is a tree - but another 'I' sees the house
and maintains that 'Here' is not a tree but a house instead
both truths have the same authentication - immediacy of seeing - the certainty that
both have about their knowing
but the one truth vanishes in the other
COMMENTARY:
what is clear here is that immediacy is no ground for knowledge
and further that 'knowledge' is not grounded in sense certainty (for this on Hegel's argument
is an illusion) - but rather - uncertainty
firstly
what immediacy points to is the unknown - it is an epistemological portal
what is immediate vanishes - but immediacy itself is never gone
thus the contents of the immediate can never be held - and as result can never be
known
this should make it clear that if immediate knowledge is our goal - the goal can never
be reached
if on the other hand we give up on the idea of knowledge as being immediate -
we have a show at giving the concept of knowledge some significance
at the very least we know knowledge cannot be immediate - if it is anything it is not
immediate
secondly
the 'I' is in fact never known - it is the ground of un-knowing
what I am at any point of space and time is not what or who I am
I am always more than the moment of my being - the moment of I -
so the moment is never I
the moment of I always points to the unknown
the unknown is the I
