Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:
II. PERCEPTION: OR THE THING AND DECEPTION
111.
ARGUMENT:
immediate certainty does not take over the truth for the truth is the universal
perception takes what is present to it as a universal
the immediate self-differentiating moments within perception are universal
I is a universal and the object is a universal
there are two movements: the movement of pointing out is the act of perceiving - the
other is the same movement as a simple event - the object perceived
in essence the object is the same as the movement
the movement is the unfolding and differentiation of the two moments
and the object is the approached togetherness of the moments
the universal or principle is the essence of perception -
and in contrast to this - both the moments are distinguished - that which perceives and
that which is perceived - are the unessential
but because both are the universal - both are essential
since they are related to each other as opposites - only one can be essential
one of them - the object defined as the simple entity is the essence regardless of
whether it is perceived or not
the act of perceiving as the movement - is the unessential movement
the unstable factor that can be as well as not be
COMMENTARY:
the problem with this argument about essence is that we don't know what essence is
supposed to be -
for Hegel it is as if the term speaks for itself
he speaks of perception and the object as being moments of the same movement
one would think therefore the movement is what is essential
if i.e. essence is just that which underlies phenomena - that which is the basis of - the foundation of appearance - appearance of anything - then in so far as this essence does not appear - it is unknown
now we can conceptualize here - Spinoza went for substance - as that which is the
logical basis of all that exists - Plato forms etc.
what is clear is that these are conceptions - conceptions designed to give some
character to the unknown - to as it were give it a voice
that is such conceptualizations are theories of the unknown
Hegel's essence is such a theory of the unknown - but not a very articulate one - what does it tells us?
I don't really see how it adds to the discussion of perception and object
the question of perception is how to explain the object as independent of the
perceiver?
clearly the appearance of the object depends on perception - i.e. from one point view
its appearance is such and such - from another angle the appearance is changed -
relative to the first moment
what is it we are perceiving?
in what sense can we say there is a unity that is the object?
what is it that makes the object what it is?
we only have perception and conception - and both these ways of knowing - depend
on the object
so there is no 'objective' view
what we get back to is appearance
the object at place 1 time 1 through the eyes of A is y -
the object at place 1 time 2 through the eyes of A is yi etc.
if we are to speak of the object itself outside of perception - we can only say it is that which can appear -
and really this is not much help - for it is only a statement about objects per se - not about any object in particular
it is a conceptual argument
we cannot get to the immediate object
the immediate object remains unknown
so what do we perceive?
we perceive the unknown - (x at time 1 place 1 by A) and attempt to describe it -
any such attempt will be inconclusive - no matter how valiant
we will always be left with an incomplete picture
in Hegel's terms an unessential account
for this reason we can dispense with essence - and operate with confidence (so to
speak) with the unessential
the unessential is our best or worst response to the unknown
the point I want to make clear is that the unknown by definition is that which is
outside of consciousness -
and that whatever is outside of consciousness is unknown
it is a simple - but devastating point -
the object of knowledge is the unknown
the object of consciousness is to make the unknown - negotiable
that which is outside of consciousness is the unknown
NB.
the object is a function of consciousness
the act of perception is the establishing of a relationship between consciousness and
the object of consciousness
between consciousness and the world -
we can say the object is the point of perception
it is the focus
our relationship with the object - as phenomena - is given in the act of perception
what is perceived is given in this act
description of this - of the object - is an epistemological act
any description will place the object - the focus of perception in space and time - will
afford it substantial characteristics and sense qualities
do we say the attributes and qualities of the object are immediately perceived - that is
are given?
yes - we say this - but this is to give the object a description
and any description is non-immediate - which is to say it is reflective
it may be an 'immediate reflection' - but it is still a reflection
that is a move from the immediate event of perception
these reflective categories are given in consciousness by consciousness and for
consciousness
this is to say they are given to the object
for all intents and purposes 'object' is just that which is unknown and undefined
it is the 'point of perception'
this 'point' exists only because of perception - the fact of it - the nature of it
consciousness is internality
its object - is externality
its object is external to it - as a matter of logic
but its object - however that comes in perception - whatever form it takes - is - in the
first instance - unknown
description gives the appearance of transforming the unknown - to the known
we operate and negotiate our way in the world on the basis of description
the fact of the matter is that description is never determinate
it is just a false platform for action
the thing is though - without such a platform there could be no action
