Phenomenology vs. Philosophy: Should Hegel's Work be Used as Ground for Philosophy of Human Beings?

                          

                   Though there are sections  of Hegel’s Phenomenology of consciousness where attempts to make connections to concrete humanity have been made, I wonder if these attempts are justified, and I wonder if Hegel himself would find these valid and proper. There is no argument that parallels between Hegel’s descriptions of consciousness and actual human consciousness can be found, but this is only because humans possess consciousness.  Hegel does not tour the development of consciousness  as it relates to the human being, but as it relates to itself. In other words, he examines consciousness as consciousness, or as consciousness in general. Perhaps, then, we could make connections between the experience of the human consciousness and consciousness in general, but I do not think we can so far to make philosophical claims based on Hegel’s account. At least in terms of what Hegel intends to be philosophy, which I find to be more akin to the Science he speaks of. In this respect Hegel views the Phenomenology as more of a preparation for Science, than actual science or philosophy itself.

                To make this distinction more clear, we should determine the differences between Hegel’s view of what a Phenomenology is and what Science is supposed to be. At the end of paragraph 37 in the preface and after essentially completing a summary of the development of consciousness Hegel says:

“With this, the Phenomenology of Spirit is concluded. What Spirit prepares for itself in it, is the element of [true] knowing. In this element the moments of Spirit now spread themselves out in that form of simplicity which knows its object as its own self. They no longer fall apart into the antithesis of being and knowing, but remain in the simple oneness of knowing; they are the True in the form of the True, and their difference is only the difference of content. Their movement, which organizes itself in this element into a whole, is Logic or Speculative philosophy. “

                With that, Hegel intends to indicate a shift from Phenomenology to the consider of philosophy or Science. The task of philosophy is to know ontology in thought, and it begins with a unity of thought and being, or knowledge and being, or being-for-another and being-in-itself. As opposed to Phenomenology whose aim is to study the experience of consciousness as it develops. Phenomenolgoy is concerned with with the relation between consciousness and its object, to examine the separation of knowing and being. In the section on Absolute Knowing, paragraph 805,  Hegel further emphasizes this difference:

“Whereas in the Phenomenology of Spirit each moment is the difference of knowledge and Truth, and is the movement in which that difference is cancelled, Science on the other hand does not ccontain this difference and the cancelling of it. On the contrary, since the moment has the form of the Notion, it unites the objective form of Truth and of the knowing Self in an immediate unity.”

                So not only do we see that phenomenology is as I claimed, but we see that Science lacks  the fundamental motivation for even considering a phenomenology of consciousness as Hegel sees it: a difference in knowledge and Truth. Science (or philosophy) begins with a unity of knowing and Truth (being-in-itself).

                Thus, I do not think we should make philosophy claims based on Hegel’s phenomenological account. One may say, “Well that’s obvious from Hegel’s understanding of philosophy, but phenomenology is merely distinct kind of philosophy as we view it today.” It is not ontology or metaphysics for example. I say yes this is true, but even in that point, the argument can be made that Hegel’s phenomenology is abstract and too far-removed from what we as human beings experience. As far as abstraction goes, the most concrete explanation Hegel provides is that of the Master-Slave, and as a result it’s the most reference part of his text. Where this concreteness is lacking, the text is largely ignored by the philosophical community.

And here's a cool picture of a tiger because you've made it this far in my post: 

                As far as what Hegel would say about using his phenomenology in pieces and parts for the use of philosophy… First of all he would take issue with regard to his view of the whole. Secondly, and more surprising to me, Hegel actually claims that once we have achieved a unity in being-for-another and being-for-itself we should simply proceed as if we have learned nothing.  Here’s the quote from paragraph 808:

“In the immediacy of this new existence the Spirit has to start afresh to bring itself to maturity as if, for it, all that preceded were lost and oit had learned nothing from the experience of the earlier spirits.”

Take that as what you will... But this seems to indicate that Hegel himself might not approve of how others have used his work.