Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:
151.
ARGUMENT:
in contrast to specific law we have universal attraction - or the pure notion of law
this notion is seen as the essence - but the true inner being - the determinateness of the
specific law belongs to appearance
but the pure notion of law transcends not just specific law - but law itself
the determinateness is a vanishing moment - it is only the law that is true - not the
moment
the Notion of law as universal attraction must to get its true meaning - be grasped in
such a way - as what is absolutely simple and unitary
the differences in the law return to the inner world as a simple unity
this unity is the inner necessity of law
COMMENTARY:
the idea of the notion of law - of universal law is fair enough - it is just that - a notion
to define it so specifically as 'universal attraction' - is to give this notion - this
universal notion a particular characterization - and in so doing take away from the
universality of the notion
a universal notion - the idea of a universal law - may have some heuristic value - it
may - it may have some emotional value - but essentially the idea is the idea of what
we do not know
to say it is 'universal attraction' destroys the notion - and its value
it's really a case of trying to have it both ways - universality - and specific
characterization -
the idea of essence again may be a useful stratagem - but essence in the sense that
Hegel is putting - is - if it is anything - just what we don't know
I wouldn't say the essence is the unknown
but I would say essence is unknown
determinateness is strictly speaking an illusion and Hegel knows this - it's where he
began
what do we say of determinateness?
the best we can say is that it is the decision to act -
to say the notion of law transcends law as such - is just to do the Hegel thing - but
actually it is also to recognize that laws are made - and made for particular purposes -
and so there cannot be any universality - that is in our descriptions of reality
the notion of law is for Hegel - a necessary posit - it is almost for him it has to be -
even though we have no experience of it
he wants it to be the simple that underlies the complex of experience - the unity that
underlies the diversity
from a practical point of view I can see the utility of such
in practice we do use such a notion
however I would say the purest characterization of experience is to say it is unknown
for any other characterization i.e. as 'diversity' or 'unity' - is really an attempt to
establish a basis for use -
and it is here that contingency and necessity resolve into action
NB:
how are we to determine utility?
what is useful?
my view is that the issue is open
that in truth we don't know in any absolute sense what is useful
we face problems and we face the unknown
I think that which is useful is that which enables us to proceed in the face of the
unknown
now it could be said - well everyone proceeds anyway - no-one stops still -
there is always some action
but this is just to say from a logical point of view -
we have options and we will choose
yes
the question is what to choose?
and once the question is asked -
the state of skepticism is put on notice
so - the considered - the determined action - the chosen action - will be the act that
takes us out of a position of uncertainty
why choose one course of action and not another?
again there are no a priori answers here
we decide for our reasons
and we may find these reasons have no basis when reflected upon
but nevertheless they are the reasons for the moment
they are the reasons that enable - enable action -
they are the 'appearance' of reason
and this is what I mean by utility
- not just any action -
but a considered action
now why should this be a definition of utility - and not just a description of a certain
kind of action - i.e. - 'considered action'?
why that is - is 'considered action' - 'useful action'?
indeed - 'utility' is a philosophical classification
- no action is or is not useful in itself
to describe in this way is to place a framework on action
philosophically speaking there are any number of frameworks
action itself is - in itself - unknown
we give it characterization by framing it
there is no way of 'testing' philosophical frameworks - to decide - which is true
one's perspective here is an outcome of one's philosophical exploration
the argument is always - open
