Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher and one of the most influential authors of German idealism, including Immanuel Kant, J.G. Fichte and F.W.J. Schelling, whose influence manifests itself across a full range of contemporary philosophical topics, from metaphysical themes in epistemology and ontology, to political philosophy, the philosophy of history, art, and religion in addition to the history of philosophy.

Below are are initial excerpts from the preface to his anthological book Phenomenology of Spirit (German: Ph?nomenologie des Geistes), whereby Hegel discussed his concept of ‘philosophical science’ in search of consciousness by exploring the 'logic' of reality's self-revelation through his method of penetrating its essence.

Then, the nature of true philosophical science (‘Wissenschaft’) couldn’t be compatible with that conventionally expected in prefaces of scientific works, whose predecessors have employed methods that revealed themselves ‘inability to grasp the truth’, as argued by him, according to his own words.

Nevertheless, based on a dialectical reasoning, instead of using such previous methods, Hegel advanced the innovative proposals exposed throughout his in-depth and insightful work.

Thus, indeed, he justified such peculiar and ingenious way adopted to the preface, as we can see:

Preface

“1. In the preface to a philosophical work, it is customary for the author to give an explanation – namely, an explanation of his purpose in writing the book, his motivations behind it, and the relations it bears to other previous or contemporary treatments of the same topics – but for a philosophical work, this seems not only superfluous, but in light of the nature of the subject matter, even inappropriate and counterproductive. For whatever it might be suitable to say about philosophy in a preface – for instance, to give some historical instruction about the biases and the standpoint of the text, or some talk about the general content and the results together with a set of scattered assertions and assurances about the truth – none of these can count as the way to present philosophical truth. – Moreover, because phi- losophy essentially is in the element of universality, which encompasses the particular within itself, it might seem that even more so than in the other sciences, in philosophy what is indeed salient about its subject matter,1 even its perfect essence, would be expressed in the goal of the work and in its final results, and that the way the project is in fact carried out would be what is inessential. In contrast, if a person were to have only a general notion of, for example, anatomy, or, to put it roughly, if he were to have an acquaintance with the parts of the body taken in accordance with their lifeless existence, nobody would thereby think that he has come into full possession of the salient subject matter of that science, which is to say, its content. One would think that in addition he would have to go to the trou- ble to pay attention to the particularities of the science. – Furthermore, that kind of an aggregation of little bits and pieces of information has no real right to be called science, and a conversation about its purpose and other such generalities would be in no way distinct from the ordinary histori- cal and uncomprehending way in which the content, or these nerves and muscles, and so forth, is itself discussed. In the case of philosophy, on the other hand, this would give rise to the following incongruity, namely, that if philosophy were indeed to make use of such a method, then it would have shown itself to be incapable of grasping the truth."

“2. Determining the relation that a philosophical work professes to bear vis-à-vis other efforts at dealing with the same object also introduces an extraneous interest, and it thereby only renders obscure what is supposed to be at stake in taking cognizance of the truth. The more that conven- tional opinion holds that the opposition between the true and the false is itself fixed and set, the more that it customarily expects to find itself in either agreement or in contradiction with any given philosophical sys- tem, and, if so, then in any explanation of such a system, the more it will only see the one or the other. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive development of truth as much as it sees only contradiction in that diversity. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter. Likewise, through the fruit, the blossom itself may be declared to be a false existence of the plant, since the fruit emerges as the blos- som’s truth as it comes to replace the blossom itself. These forms are not only distinguished from each other, but, as incompatible with each other, they also supplant each other. However, at the same time their fluid nature makes them into moments of an organic unity in which they are not only not in conflict with each other, but rather, one is equally as necessary as the other, and it is this equal necessity which alone constitutes the life of the whole. However, in part, contradiction with regard to a philosophi- cal system does not usually comprehend itself in this way, and, in part, the consciousness which apprehends the contradiction generally neither knows how to free the contradiction from its one-sidedness, nor how to sustain it as free-standing. Nor, when it seems to be in the shape of a struggle against itself, does it generally take cognizance of the moments as reciprocally necessary.”

“3. Those who demand both such explanations and their satisfactions may well look as if they are really in pursuit of what is essential. Where else could the inner core of a philosophical work be better expressed than in its purposes and results, and how else could this be more determinately discerned5 than by differentiating it from all the other things that this age brings out in the same sphere? However much that sort of doing is supposed to count for more than just the beginning of cognition, or if it is supposed to count as actual cognition itself, still it is in fact to be reckoned as being little more than a contrivance for avoiding what is really at stake, or as an attempt to combine the semblance of both seriousness and effort while actually sparing oneself of either seriousness or effort. – This is so because the subject matter is not exhausted in its aims; rather, it is exhaustively treated when it is worked out. Nor is the result which is reached the actual whole itself; rather, the whole is the result together with the way the result comes to be. The aim for itself is the lifeless universal in the way that the tendency of the work itself is a mere drive that still lacks actuality; the unadorned result is just the corpse that has left the tendency behind. – Likewise, differentiatedness is instead the limit of the thing at stake. It is where the thing which is at stake ceases, or it is what that thing is not. To trouble oneself with such purposes or results, or to make distinctions and pass judgments on one or the other is thus an easier task than it might seem to be. Instead of occupying itself with what is at stake, this kind of doing has always thereby gone one step beyond it. Instead of dwelling on the thing at issue and forgetting itself in it, that sort of knowing is always grasping at something else. It instead remains in being at one with itself as it is at one with the matter at issue and gives itself over to it. – The easiest thing of all is to pass judgment on what is substantial and meaningful. It is much more difficult to get a real grip on it, and what is the most difficult of all is both to grasp what unites each of them and to give a full exposition of what that is.”

“4. The beginning both of cultural education and of working one’s way out of the immediacy of substantial life must always be done by acquainting oneself with universal principles and points of view. Having done that, one can then work oneself up to the thought of what is at stake and, of no less importance, to giving reasons for supporting or refuting one’s thoughts on those matters. One must grasp the subject matter’s concrete and rich fullness according to its determinateness, and one must know both how to provide an orderly account of it and to render a serious judgment about it. However, the commencement of cultural education will first of all also have to carve out some space for the seriousness of a fulfilled life, which in turn leads one to the experience of the crux of the matter,7 so that even when the seriousness of the concept does go into the depths of the crux of the matter, this kind of acquaintance and judgment will still retain its proper place in conversation.”

“5. The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific sys- tem of that truth. To participate in the collaborative effort at bringing philosophy nearer to the form of science – to bring it nearer to the goal where it can lay aside the title of love of knowing and be actual knowing – is the task I have set for myself. The inner necessity that knowing should be science lies in the nature of knowing, and the satisfactory explanation for this inner necessity is solely the exposition of philosophy itself. However, external necessity, insofar as this is grasped in a universal manner and insofar as personal contingencies and individual motivations are set aside, is the same as the internal necessity which takes on the shape in which time presents the existence of its moments. To demonstrate that it is now time for philosophy to be elevated into science would therefore be the only true justification of any attempt that has this as its aim, because it would demonstrate the necessity of that aim, and, at the same time, it would be the realization of the aim itself.”

“6. In positing that the true shape of truth lies in its scientific rigor – or, what is the same thing, in asserting that truth has the element of its existence solely in concepts – I do know that this seems to contradict an idea (along with all that follows from it), whose pretentiousness is matched only by its pervasiveness in the convictions of the present age. It thus does not seem completely gratuitous to offer an explanation of this contradic- tion even though at this stage such an explanation can amount to little more than the same kind of dogmatic assurance which it opposes. However much, that is to say, the true exists only in what, or rather exists only as what, is at one time called intuition and at another time called either the immediate knowing of the absolute, or religion, or being – not at the center of the divine love, but the being of divine love itself – still, if that is taken as the point of departure, what is at the same time demanded in the exposition of philosophy is going to be instead the very opposite of the form of the concept. The absolute is not supposed to be conceptually grasped but rather to be felt and intuited. It is not the concept but the feeling and intuition of the absolute which are supposed to govern what is said of it.”

“7. If such a requirement is grasped in its more general context, and if its appearance is viewed from the stage at which self-conscious spirit is presently located, then spirit has gone beyond the substantial life which it had otherwise been leading in the element of thought – it has gone beyond this immediacy of faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the cer- tainty that consciousness had about its reconciliation with the essence, and it has gone beyond the universal present, or, the inner as well as the outer of that essence. Spirit has not only gone beyond that to the opposite extreme of a reflection of itself into itself which is utterly devoid of substance; it has gone beyond that extreme too. Not only has its essential life been lost to it, it is conscious of this, and of the finitude that is its content. Turning itself away from such left-over dregs, spirit, while both confessing to being mired in wickedness and reviling itself for being so, now demands from philosophy not knowledge of what spirit is; rather, it demands that it again attain the substantiality and the solidity of what is, and that it is through philosophy that it attain this. To meet these needs, philosophy is not supposed so much to unlock substance’s secret and elevate this to self-consciousness –not so much to bring chaotic consciousness back both to a well-thought- out order and to the simplicity of the concept, but, instead, to take what thought has torn asunder and then to stir it all together into a smooth mélange, to suppress the concept that makes those distinctions, and then

to fabricate the feeling of the essence. What it wants from philosophy is not so much insight as edification. The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, reli- gion, and love itself are all the bait required to awaken the craving to bite. What is supposed to sustain and extend the wealth of that substance is not the concept, but ecstasy, not the cold forward march of the necessity of the subject matter, but instead a kind of inflamed inspiration.” (…)

(Initial excerpts from the Preface to The Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, translated and edited by Terry Pinkard, Georgetown University, Washington DC, Cambridge University Press, 2018)