The Well Driven Hunt of Our Dueling Consciousness’s

Hegel pushes us to follow our pure self-consciousness in order to challenge and help the societies we live in, by varying the person type so we can, in turn, learn from one another. Ideally, we would flourish in our own self-contained self-consciousness where everything is personal, but we have to use society not only as a means to prove our existence, but to better ourselves and to better the community ideally reaching a synthesis of the personal and the society. It can be trying, but we have a responsibility to follow our individual freedoms, and to do our job, because freedom and daring is not defined by lawless pursuits, but rather by the well driven hunt to personal fulfillment.

The idea of synthesis is integral to Hegel and our responsibility as a people. We have two things that are different, possibly opposites, that, when in harmony with each other creates synthesis; a marriage that is better than the sum of its parts. Hegel’s synthesis comes when we take the anarchical lawlessness of our minds and blend that with the more structured and less controlled second consciousness of the public. We do our duty and complete our job in society, but we find that job by pursuing our untamed imagination and finding our best use. This is both Mill and Plato; Do what ever you want while in pursuit (as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody), and make that pursuit end in a way that benefits your personal self-consciousness and that of societies. This is responsibility through duality of self-consciousness, and Hegel’s major point in helping us understand responsibility.

It’s unsettled, it’s untamed, it’s wild, our independent self-consciousness that we operate, is so beautiful and pure. I rein master over my self-consciousness, of all the switches, buttons, and domains. However, my self-consciousness fights the consciousness of reality and social status, where I am merely judged, placed, and positioned by name, race, and accomplishments. Maybe, the social consciousness of red hair negates the way I feel about red hair, for my personal belief meets its opposition. Maybe I start to feel differently about red hair because of what society is telling me. This is not a synthesis of the two, but rather an inevitable downfall of our dueling consciousnesses. Take Friends School for example (in the year 2015 to avoid any hurt feelings): If person x comes in as a freshman, he/she will more than likely be treated as the new x. Most if not all of those persons initial relationships will be based off their status as the new x, and will be defined as such. Now, that person is going to act and feel in a different manner, because society’s consciousness is dictating that person’s behavior. Our activities and our relationships directly influence our self- consciousness. No matter how absolute one’s feeling is independent of their social reality; their situation is determined in large part by their status. This makes it hard to distinguish between ones personal ambition, and ones developed consciousness thanks to their social reality. For example: In a plantation in the American South, a slave conceals genius and feels empowered by his natural drive, but is ultimately marginalized and still a slave. However, within the community of the slaves at the plantation he is seen as strong and as a leader. He experiences multiple social consciousnesses along with his own personal self consciousness. He is not at synthesis, he cannot marry the three realities, and his biggest problem, is that he can’t, because he’s a slave. What does he think of himself, knowing that he can’t be free? Is he doing his job and fulfilling the social consciousness? No, because he is capable of much more, but cannot get there because of societies hold. This is the argument against injustice within Hegel’s world; how could someone be doing their job of being tortured or enslaved, if they are not personally accepting of this reality?

We can only transcend and reach synthesis when we marry our own personal beliefs and feelings with that of the outside community, both in feeling and in status. Doing our job, but also feeding our personal consciousness.

independence through sublation

Hegel states that our purpose in life is to self-actualize God. To exist in this world, we have to be aware that we exist. We have to have a purpose, self actualizing makes us real. For something to exist, it has to be recognized, by self, or by witnesses. Our consciousness could exist on its own, except it needs another to recognize it as existing as a separate entity from ourselves, logically making us to be an independent conscious. Using the old saying of "if a tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it does it make a sound," as an example, to Hegel it would not. If there is no one there to hear it, then it is insignificant, and therefore doesn't exist. Once someone hears it, then it is recognized as being real. The individual itself is insignificant, each is in existence to recognize each other, to create a society, and to allow God to self-actualize. To Hegel, that is why God created the world, he knew that he could not become God, could not be recognized as God unless he could actualize himself as existing and he did this by creating the anti-thesis of himself. God created us (man) for the purpose of self-actualizing himself, therefore our purpose in life is to do this for him. We live our lives with the thought that we have freedom, and we do, but the end point is always the same result, so our freedom is short. No matter what choice we make we come to God's self-actualization. We have the freedom to do what we want, but no matter what we choose it will benefit God in his search for self-actualization, the synthesis of the existence of man.
To self-actualize, the individual must be able to separate themselves from what he knows. The saying "put yourself in someone else's shoes" shows this. That we learn from what we don't know. Hegel believes that to have a meaningful relationship of any kind, a relationship where one individual grows to be a better person, he has to give the other person the freedom to do what they want to do. Hegel brings up the master (lordship) and slave (bondage), such as the master is the the independent conscious. He is vacant, empty, and does not achieve sublation because he does not create an anti-thesis for himself, he does not encounter something he doesn't know. Like God, he creates something to acknowledge his existence, but unlike God, he holds his control over his slaves, therefore not sublating in the sense of finding a deeper self-actualization. He has a false sense of self actualization because his sense of recognition comes from the false respect he gets from his slaves. God letting go of his control over us was key in his self-actualization, because it created an antithesis in which he gained something greater. We have to separate ourselves from the want to control our surroundings. We lose some of our private freedoms, but in order to create more meaningful relationships, and a better society, we have to give up our control. If we do not have this control, we are not in the social position to be capable of sublation. The slave for instance is in existence under the master and the master gives the slave his self-recognition by being his master. The slave has no control to give up, he cannot alienate himself, he doesn't have the power. Because of the nature of the master/slave relationship, neither can truly sublate, because they define each other infinitely. Once actualizing their existence, they cannot separate themselves enough from each other to become an independent self, benefitting society. God alienated himself, made the personal sacrifice to in the end better himself by actualizing his existence, using us as tools. If we do this in everyday life, and live our lives by alienating ourselves, to in the end better the society, we will work towards God's greater goal of self-actualization. It is not our responsibility to do this, it is a fact. Hegel does not imply that we have the choice to act in any other way than that of sublation. The lack of our personal freedoms does not leave us with responsibility, it leaves us with fact. When these freedoms are taken away it does not leave us with a choice to make our path something other than sublation. Hegel states that no matter what the end result is God's synthesis that he has chosen, and the path to this is sublation. Therefore it is not our responsibility to sublate, it is our fate.

Hegel & Thoughts On Responsiblity

Assuming that the responsibility of the individual is to help God find its self-identity by engaging in their personal self-discovery, my interpretation of Hegel is that it is the responsibly for an individual to experience everything in order to formulate self-identity. The experience refers to the formulation of thoughts and the interactions of individuals with other individuals. Each person is born with a self-identify however, one cannot see their own identity if they have not interacted with another. It is only through the interaction with another self-identity that people can formulate their own identity. It is the exchange of thoughts that allow a person to identify him or herself. A person needs not only to interact with another person, but is responsible of interacting with a person that has an opposite thought than the one held by the first person. It is through the interaction that a person can gain self-knowledge, though this knowledge one further discovers their self-identity. In order to gain this knowledge there are things one must assume. By assuming things about oneself and about others a person can gain knowledge but can also gain knowledge by assuming the opposite of the first assumption. However, one person cannot make conflicting/contrasting assumptions at the same time. This is why it is necessary that another person be involved. This is especially true if another person’s assumption is the direct opposite of the first person’s assumption. Through the discussion of the assumptions, truth can be found by combining them into one true statement. However, all aspects of each of the extreme assumptions will not be present in what is ultimately known as the true fact. Hegel believes that there will be a point in time that each individual has completed their discovery of their true self-identity, then God will be able to reintegrate the world and every individual back into its self and thus completing its self-identity.

In this particular text, Hegel speaks of self-actualization.  For one to be self-actualized one must recognize something as distinct from oneself while that something must reciprocate the same action (it recognizes the distinction as well).  This can be referred to as Hegel’s view of the natural order.  Though the antitheses of a being is required for self-recognition, things of general difference are also necessary; e.g. a human recognizing its distinction from a dog or a tree.

The progress of self-recognition is diminished when one of the beings is inferior to the other.  Both beings suffer in the progress of their self-actualization in this situation.  The being in the superior position will not have a mirror image (one recognizing the other as something of equal value) to identify with itself and will be unable to achieve a true recognition.  For example, a human being requires another human being to make the determination that he/she is a human being, or something that is the complete opposite to discover that he/she is not that particular thing.  Consequently, the one in the inferior position also lacks this mirror image required for some of its progress in self-actualization.

Can an optimal relationship be achieved where the individuals involved are at distinctly different social statuses and are considered to be of different self-worth? An optimal relationship is one where the individuals involved can maximize their self-actualizations (recognition and respect is equal in both parties).  Hegel believes that the Slave and Master relationship is inferior to one of equality.  The master, in order to maintain the position of master, does not recognize the slave as an individual or something of value, but the slave provides the master with an ignorant belief of self-worth.  The master determines who he is through the labor of the slave.  This is an ignorant belief of self-worth because the master is relating himself to the world through the slave’s experiences.  This particular master does not do anything himself and his luxuries and daily life are dependent on the labor of the slave.  The slave progressives in self-actualization through work, but still lacks that recognition as a being of value from the master.  This means the slave is not entirely dependent on the master for self-actualization, but the master, who desires to maintain this relationship, is dependent on the slave.  The slave cannot achieve true self-actualization until he is no longer a slave, and the master cannot achieve self-actualization until he experiences the world for himself.

 This raises the question: how can an optimal social relationship be achieved to maximize everyone’s self-actualization?  The master has power but is not taking any responsibility to improve his own self-awareness and is instead relying on the slave to do this.  The slave has all the responsibility but lacks power (the freedom) to have novel experiences-- anything that the master does not permit the slave to do.  This is a suboptimal relationship that limits both parties from having the tools to achieve self-awareness.  For an optimal relationship to be achieved the slave, according to Hegel, must not fear death and therefore has the capability to bargain with the master.  The master, who is dependent on the slave, must concede to the slave’s demand.  This leads to a forced equality.  In summary, power without responsibility is unstable because it goes against Hegel’s view of the natural order, which is equality. 

Final Paper for Fall Term

Due: Thursday 11/12 in class, in your folders.
No extensions.
Length: 5-7 pages.

You must cite Plato, Kant and Hegel in this paper. We imagine that you would also want to look at at least one form of contract theory in order to create a complete argument. By cite we mean quote.

This will be the last time you re-write this paper before the "Oral Defense" re-write of your paper as final project. Please take very seriously the comments you received on the first draft of this paper in September.

The question (from the summer reading assignment):
Are we essentially free? In what ways does society (and social responsibility) define who we are? How do we balance our freedom and our responsbility?

Use your discussion groups outside of class for help refining and defining a clear thesis. Every good paper starts with a good argument.

Blog Post Assignment for Thursday 10/29

How does Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage" help us to understand responsibility?

Link to watch:

http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=8

We were at 41:39. Please watch the last 5 minutes of this lecture.

Feel free to watch other lectures as you find them appropriate. Many of these classes have a connection to what we have been discussing.

Thesis Statement

To be truly free beings, humans must engage in thoughtful and carefully articulated discussions of issues and questions (i.e laws, religion, etc) within society; however, when these discussions occur in a public setting, they must be for the benefit of the social whole, while discourse held in private could only be to the benefit of the individual or individuals within that private setting, but would not be put into universal law until discussed publicly.

Man's immaturity is only self imposed beyond a certain point. The point in this case is the level of knowledge any one person has randomly attained, but rejects to use in a argumentative manner at the public level.

Morgan's Thesis Statement

Goes a little something like this:


There are two duties regarding freedom and responsibility: the first is belief and the second is expression. In terms of belief, in order to become enlightened it is our freedom to believe as we please, but it is our responsibility to believe by our own terms and share through discourse our beliefs. In terms of expression it is our duty to be obediant and displined in the private domain, but our freedom to share our beliefs in the public domain.

Thesis Statement

Enlightenment is our experiences and thoughts that liberate us from already established functions of a society.

Thesis Statement

Our responsibility, in Kant's view, is to progress from a state of immaturity to a society where all are encouraged to exercise freedom of expression.

- Hannah Kramer

Thesis Statement

It is each individual’s responsibility to achieve enlightenment - which one can only do by recognizing the freedom to choose their own morals - for the continued progress of the society as a whole.

Thesis

One cannot exist as a free individual until he has grown out of his immaturity by realizing his ability to argue; although this only enables freedom of the mind, each step closer to enlightenment is one step closer to freedom of actions.

Kant relates freedom and responsibility by illustrating their proper roles in private and public domains when a society progresses towards enlightenment. 

thesis statement

An individual finds enlightenment through the freedom within the private sphere and he has the responsibility to look beyond the restrictions of the social realm and use this enlightenment to work towards the greater good within the public sphere.

Thesis

Freedom, states Kant, only exists in the arena of discourse. In practical matters, one's duty to society takes absolute precedence, for the sake of the collective stability of society as a whole.

Thesis statement

According to Kant, a society is at its freest state through a compromise of individual freedom and civic responsibility: when its constituents are engaging in public discourse, while at the same time conforming to their prescribed social roles. 

Thesis Statement

From the perspective of Kant a society can only reach enlightenment when they have the freedom and responsibility to engage in public debate.

Thesis

In "An Answer to the Question: 'What is Enlightenment?" Kant is trying to impress upon his readers the idea that one should have the freedom to proclaim their ideas to the public while maintaining their responsibility to obey authority in their private lives so societal and government structures are held intact.

Thesis statement

Society influences so much of each individual choice in life by demanding it, that it infringes on our freedom; which leads us into a state of, as Kant would say, immaturity.

For Thursday 10/15 by the end of the day

Please post the one sentence thesis statement for your Kant paper. Everyone should participate in this blog exercise.

First Paper Topic

Your first paper will be due on Monday October 19th in class (in your folders which will contain a copy of your summer papers). This is the Monday of Parent-Conferences week. If you are going out of town this week (to visit colleges...?), you need to turn this paper in before you go.

Length: 3 pages (do not exceed) -- double spaced -- times 12 -- regular margins

The question: Read carefully Kant's piece "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" (in your packet, pages 64 - 67). How does Kant relate the concepts of freedom and responsibility in this short essay?
(in order to create your argument in response to the above question, it might help you to think out Kant's specific definitions of the public and the private -- very clear here and not what you expect).

This paper should have a thesis and clear points of proof from this text (and only this text). It should also be cleanly written and correctly cited.

This is a more challenging assignment than might appear. We suggest that you meet outside of class in small groups (maybe your blog groups) to do a close reading of this text and to help each other to work through these concepts. Remember too that Kant is one of the philosophers who you must cite in your final project.