In
paragraph 3 of the Preface, Hegel begins discussion of a theme that seems to be
essential to his work. This theme is the issue of results versus processes. In
this paragraph, Hegel writes that stating the aim or the result of something
gives a minimal amount of insight into it. He says that real issue of something
is not its result or aim but these things taken along with the process of
carrying the aim out. On this, he writes, “The aim by itself is a lifeless
universal, just as the guiding tendency is a mere drive that as yet lacks an
actual existence; and the bare result is the corpse which has left the guiding
tendency behind it” (2). Here Hegel implies that aims and results are really
nothing without the process or development associated with them.
Hegel
builds on this basic point in paragraph 20 when he claims that the “true” is
the whole, which in turn is “the essence consummating itself through its
development” (11). It seems to follow from this that anything that is a part of
something and does not encompass it wholly with both its result and the full
process leading to it is not really the truth of something. This seems to make
sense on a basic, common sense level. A part of something as opposed to a whole
may be misleading and to its actual veracity or meaning; the truth in the whole
may not be fully expressed by a part. It seems to make sense that in order to
truly comprehend something, as Hegel expresses in both of these paragraphs, one
must know the whole and that the whole includes the process or development from
the aim to the result.
I’m
not sure I fully understand all of this, and my questions regarding it may be
completely off-base, but I do question Hegel’s viewpoint. It seems like the
process towards the development of something may not just proceed in a
straight, narrow vacuum. It seems like the process something develops in may
not be one-sided but may come from different directions. For example, in the
line of development, it may be the case that from point a to point b multiple
forces from different people, things, etc. may influence the process to get it
to point b. Moreover, there may be more results that stem from all of these
different forces than just arrival at point b. However, it seems farfetched
that for a given process, a person may know or comprehend all of these forces,
and the truth is the whole. Would this mean that the true is really in some
cases unintelligible to any given person because said person cannot really know
all of the things involved in a process? For some things, is it actually
possible that no one can know the whole which in turn means that no one can
know the true?
The "something" toward which Hegel indicates he is striving is "actual knowing." His process of arriving at this, while textually convoluted, seems reasonable to me. (Pun!) Hegel describes human consciousness as a helpful tool along the way of discovering the truth inherent only in "actual knowledge." Consciousness is however, just a tool. Consciousness allows us to realize the world around us for its abstract and dialectical qualities. It is by surpassing mere consciousness and by arriving at a sense of intuition, or sense-consciousness that we may arrive at what Hegel calls "actual knowing," by employing our evolved speculative understanding about the world. Via this process, as we learn to look rationally at the world, it looks rationally back - in theory, that is. You second question particularly interests me. I do not believe that Hegel encourages us to view the whole of existence as within our understandings. We are not that evolved; there are some things that the scope of human understanding may never encompass. His concern, it seems to me, is that we should look for truth where it can be found, and should not fret about the metaphysical details that are beyond our understandings. There are some things that I cannot understand, and I understand that I understand that fact.
ReplyDeleteLike Isabelle already said, Hegel encourages us to look at and examine our process of understanding in a new way. In this book he is taking us through consciousness in its process of understanding and ultimately knowing. However, clearly the process is essential, one does not just arrive at actual knowing. I think another important distinction to make is that actual knowing for Hegel is more about the system and understanding the ways in which the world works, not every single detail of the actual world. I think people can know the whole system if they fall Hegel's process of consciousness and that is the true, not every aspect of the whole
ReplyDeleteRochelle,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your skepticism, and it caused me to think again on Hegel's assertion that truth can be found in an understanding of the whole. However, after further thought, it appears on point to me.
In physics, data and information in general is often worthless unless it is considered in relation to some reference point. Without some kind of context, is it possible to know any single thing? It seems that we have to gather more than fundamental elements of the subject matter at hand to make sense of any of it. Our desire to find fundamental principles may be totally misguided (though still of value) if we consider that fundamental principles are worthless without everything else that we believe they determine.
The issue here, for me, is that we have so often approached things from a "parts" perspective. That is, we do not try to understand things in their entirety all at once. In fact such an infinitude is impossible to obtain for any relevant being to date. The processes and results that we have produced from this approach are undeniable. I find it tough to understand, if Hegel is indeed denying truth in the parts of a thing.