Note: the numbers in these posts refer to the numbered sections of Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit. Miller. Oxford. 1977.
In what follows I will present Hegel's argument and follow it with my commentary.
I. SENSE CERTAINTY: OR THE 'THIS' AND 'MEANING' (MEINEN).
90.
ARGUMENT:
the immediate object is immediate knowledge
a knowledge of the immediate is knowledge of what is
our approach to the object must be immediate or receptive
we must alter nothing in the object as it presents
in apprehending we must refrain from comprehending
COMMENTARY:
the immediate object is only immediate knowledge on reflection
just quickly what this tells us is that there is no immediate knowledge
is there nevertheless an immediate object?
yes - but it can only be described - on reflection
outside of reflection - or prior to it - it is unknown
Hegel wants to say knowledge is the immediate object of knowledge
on the face of it this is to say knowledge is its own object
but again this can only be on reflection
and reflection is not immediate
the immediate is non-reflective
and for that reason unknown
I would be happy with the idea that knowledge is the reflective object of knowing
we do reflect on what we know
but outside of this is what is not known
the unknown is thus the object of knowledge
the immediate object of knowledge is the unknown
it is immediate - because it is unknown
to suggest that knowledge is its immediate object
is to confuse subject and object
and further it is to fail to provide a reason for knowledge
Hegel says a knowledge of the immediate is a knowledge of what is
if so
what is - is unknown - that which is not known
you could go from here to suggesting that the point of knowledge is just to give
characterization of the unknown
that knowledge is the mind's response to what is not known
it is to suggest that what is - is greater than what is known
on Hegel's view the two are equivalent
I argue that knowledge is human consciousness' strategy for dealing with what is not
known
it is the organism's fundamental response to its context - its environment - the world
it is in my view a form of action
Hegel says our approach to the object must be immediate - we must alter nothing in
the object as it presents
I just say to this any response to the object (however you wish to define this) will
always be reflective - non-immediate
how can you ever establish what the 'object' is prior to this approach?
can you know if you do not alter it?
could not the act of reflection itself transform the object?
the point is we don't know
what we have is what is reflected
and our purposes determine how we describe this
the presentation is completely and utterly contingent
its definition - the presentation is a matter of reflection
outside of this - outside of reflection - the presentation is pure
it is - that is - unknown
to know just simply is to alter the object of knowledge
the immediate object of knowledge is the unknown
there is no immediate knowledge - all knowledge is reflective
what we can say from this is that reality is immediate -
but in it's immediacy - not known
I would argue too that knowledge and the unknown are categories of existence
that existence is not exhausted by either category
though you can say - what exists is what is known and what is unknown
it can be described by this conjunction
and yes - it is a matter of logic
x and -x
the point being existence is logical possibility
this is the best we can say
