OK. we're going to try the Hegel Thing. Earlier this summer, I was in the Metropolitan Museum of Art with a dear friend. We'll call him David, and he is a good friend of L's from school, an all around brilliant dude who refuses to accept that he's one of the brightest people in any given situation. We were aimlessly drifting through the Greek & Roman wing, and we came upon a very early example of a sacrificial offering to the gods--a little copper statue of a person. The conversation it sparked went along much the same lines as what follows.
----
OK. so. Hegel. hmm. not really a blogable topic. This will be woefully inadequate, but lets focus on the Master / Bondsperson dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
For Hegel, the Kantian separation of the self from the external world is lacking. The objects in the world around us are, as in Kant, things other than ourselves, but it is not until we can recognize this that we can, in opposition, comprehend such an entity as our self. The objective world and the subjective world necessarily inform one another, and so the Kantian separation becomes less useful.
Here's the important part. To confront an object in the world is to understand it as something other than your self. One moves beyond one’s self to approach the object. Thus a basic, purely negative notion of “self” arises. In turn, this self is able to then understand the object as an externality. The object is thus understood instrumentally, and the consciousness alienated from its object and dimly aware of the boundary that is it’s subject-hood—there are things in the world beyond its subjectivity.
Lets put that in less pretentious terms. You're walking along. You see a rock. You know this rock is not you. How? well, you pick the rock up and you throw it as far away as you can.
What happened?
Well, you're still standing where you were, unchanged. The rock is somewhere else, out of sight, or broken, or what-have-you. Point is, you've established yourself as other-than-the-rock. You don't know what you are, per se, but you know what you're not. Not rock. With me so far? Also important, you have power over this rock-thing. You have abilities, namely the ability to control the fate of a thing that is Other.
Hegel goes on to describe how in a social context we encounter another human, don't recognize that that's what we are too, but we see them throw a rock of their own, and realize that they, too, have power over others. They are other from us, so we must be other from them, oh shit - they can do to us what they did to the rock, we better do it to them first -BAM!- power dynamic, enter the whole history of western civilization stage left.
But lets focus for a second on an upshot from this that Marx in particular latches on to. Our ability to affect the material of the world around us is the crucial first step to realizing our self-ness. To actualizing, as we pretentious people like to say. Its only a few steps from there that creating things (and here's where we get into early Marx's materialism) is a crucial part to being human. Think about it for a second. If you've ever made a work of art or built anything, you have taken raw (or at least more raw) materials from around you and organized them in a way that created a product in line with your intentions. And I bet you felt pretty bad-ass. You can scoop some ore out of the ground, and forge and mix and bend and bang it into gears and pipes and chains and make yourself a bicycle. You can turn trees into houses. You can grind up flowers for pigment and paint something that expresses an emotion you had no word for. (of course we no longer get to do every step of that process, and thats Marx's alienation, but that's a whole 'nother blog post, chill out)
Ok, so are you with me so far? Important point is that making things out of the world around us is how we inform ourselves of what we are.
Now think back to this artifact David and I were looking at in the Met. It's a raw copper statue of a little person, that was made by a person in order to be offered to the Gods. Think about that.
It's saying, "I know what I am. This is what I am and I accept it." It's signing the Hegelian contract, so to speak. It's telling God / The Gods that you get it.
How cool is that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
ok, listen. I just turned in my major declaration form. So I can *graduate*. And listen, it wasn't philosophy. And I felt damn good about that decision on Friday, and now you have to go around writing about the coolest stuff ever.
I. hate. you.
Also, of course, I have- a question. I guess I'm just trying to think about ways to prevent/ alternatives to western power dynamics as they have been acting out for the last three thousand plus years. And I'm thinking about animals. How do animals relate to one another. Also, I'm thinking about Darwin, and how it benefits us to work together in groups. And I'm thinking about love, what is love and how do you love someone when/if you've got this barrier of not-me, and how can you love a person if you think they're gonna pick you up and throw YOU, and how can you love a rock if you just think about how much power you have to alter it and how different you are and also, a rock could fall off of a cliff and onto your head and it's the same substance. oh snap. so these are my questions. not that you have to answer them. just thinking.
also, make that blog post on marxist alienation? please?
i mean, there's a lot that I think Hegel misses when he concludes like that with the power dynamic. But thats dissertation-level shit. Short answer, there are a million of points between seeing another and deciding to dominate/submit wherein one could go half-way. think about every action movie where two cats have guns pointed at one another. It doesn't always resolve all Hegel-style. I think Hegel (and Marx) is (are) largely correct up until that point however. Insofar as the importance of externality to self-realization. (realize how big of a leap this is from Descartes, for whom everything can exist inside his brain)
Marxist alienation is a considerably larger issue. But it definitely has a lot to do with what I know your philosophical concerns are, and is vital to understanding everyone interesting post-marx, especially Marcuse, Foucault, a little bit of Sartre, etc etc etc
hmm. of interest. Hegel's proto-people have no language. So this is possibly why there's no possibility of compromise. Question is, could there be basic communication in this situation. hmmm... good, something to keep me busy for a while.
oh no! language rears its ugly head again!
Well, communication couldn't exist til there's a recognition of difference, right? So if anything it would come into being concurrently with the realization of an other. Unless thinking in one's own head--with or without language--counts as communication. Which I don't think it does. Except there's that meta-self that can think about the self, so.
Also, what would communication with a rock look like? I realize that's too literal, but still--communication with any object or being other than oneself. Until there's a system of some kind, how would one establish that communication (assuming communication necessitates basic understanding) is really taking place at all?
..or. Rachel's question on animals. Which are generally accepted (okay, that's a huge caveat) to have no sense of self (chimps and a couple others excepted), but also accepted to communicate. Maybe sense of self is different, though. Because there has to be a very rudimentary understanding of self as separate from one's environment to survive, right?--to hunt, for example.
Ah, but tools! Not all animals observed to use tools are ones that most researchers consider self-aware. But to make and use tools you've got to recognize them as some kind of other, recognize a potential instrumentality in them. Two layers, in fact, because you're then using Object A to mediate your interaction with Object B.
My tea is getting cold.
Post a Comment