The real subject in Hegel's philosophy
- Oliver Marcell Bjerregaard
- Oct 13, 2017
- 2 min read
(This post is only for those who's read Hegel or has some knowledge regarding Hegel's ideas. If not, then this post is probably not for you. It's not related to health, nutrition, biohacking, etc. It's purely for philosophical purpose)
This article might deviate a bit from the other blog posts, but I've seen a tremendous amount of confusion regarding Hegel's philosophy, especially when it comes to his concept (or "Begriff") of the subject. I'll try to make it as short and straightforward as possible. So without further ado:
Self-consciousness ("Selbstbewusstsein") is for Hegel only self-consciousness if there's another self-consciousness. This means, that self-consciousness cannot find satisfaction nor can it be self-aware if it was only to interact with passive objects. This is partially because passive objects cannot acknowledge ("Anerkennung") self-consciousness as self-consciousness. Put in more basic terms: when a human meets another human they (can) acknowledge each other as humans and therefore they become self-aware (the master-slave dialectic won't be expanded in this blog post). The sociality between two human beings is therefore the most fundamental part of being human. Self-consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. This leads us to Hegel's concept of the subject. For Hegel, the social aspect is so critical that it is the very subject. It is not "hiin Enkelte" (picked up from Kierkegaard) or the individual self-aware human being that is the subject. It is the sociality between two human beings (or two self-consciousness) that is the subject. Without the interaction between two self-consciousness there wouldn't be any self-consciousness at all; there wouldn't be any development, self-reflection, self-awareness, culture, etc. For Hegel, the nature of the human being is therefore fundamentally social. You can picture sociality as the glue between two pieces of wood. It is the very fabric of consciousness. You don't have to agree with this thought (in many ways I don't) but it is a crucial part of understanding Hegel.
Picked up from "Phänomenologie des Geistes" and the discussion takes place in chapther 4.
