Heidegger Hegel's Concept of Experience[1]
June 14, 2018 | Author: Paul Davies | Category: N/A
Short Description
Download Heidegger Hegel's Concept of Experience[1]...
Description
Harper
Ro
Edit Editio ions ns of
CONCEPT
HEGEL'S
Basic Basic Wrili Wriling ng Be
nd
im
Disco Discours urs on Thinki Thinking ng Ear-ly Ear-ly Gree Thinking Thinking Th En
With
of Phil Philos osop ophy hy
Hege Hegel's l's Conc Concept ept of Experi Experienc enc denti dentily ly an ie zs
lu
I, Th
Po
rt
lu
I llll , T h an
il io
er
of Spirit
in the
ietz ietzsc sche he Volu Volume me Il Th Etem Etemal al Recu Recurr rren ence ce of th Same Same ie zs e:
from from Hege Hegel' l'
Phen Phenom omen enol olog og
Differ Differenc enc il
sect sectio io
KE LE
K1wwledge
as Metap Metaphy hysic sic
OY
DO
translation
Niet Nietzs zsch che: e: Volu Volume me [V Nihi Nihili lism sm ay to Lang;uag Lang;uag
Ti
ei
Poetry Poetry Langu Languag age, e, Thou Though gh Th Ques Questi tion on Conc Concer erni ning ng Tech Techno nolo logy gy an
Othe Othe Essa Essays ys
What What Is Call Called ed Thin Thinki king ng
1817
Harper
R ow ow , P u l is is he he rs rs ,
Sa
Ne o rk rk , G ra ra n a pi pi ds ds , P hi hi la la de de lp lp hi hi a Lo do ga or dn ok o,
F r n ci ci sc sc o St. Louis or nt
Harper
Ro
Edit Editio ions ns of
CONCEPT
HEGEL'S
Basic Basic Wrili Wriling ng Be
nd
im
Disco Discours urs on Thinki Thinking ng Ear-ly Ear-ly Gree Thinking Thinking Th En
With
of Phil Philos osop ophy hy
Hege Hegel's l's Conc Concept ept of Experi Experienc enc denti dentily ly an ie zs
lu
I, Th
Po
rt
lu
I llll , T h an
il io
er
of Spirit
in the
ietz ietzsc sche he Volu Volume me Il Th Etem Etemal al Recu Recurr rren ence ce of th Same Same ie zs e:
from from Hege Hegel' l'
Phen Phenom omen enol olog og
Differ Differenc enc il
sect sectio io
KE LE
K1wwledge
as Metap Metaphy hysic sic
OY
DO
translation
Niet Nietzs zsch che: e: Volu Volume me [V Nihi Nihili lism sm ay to Lang;uag Lang;uag
Ti
ei
Poetry Poetry Langu Languag age, e, Thou Though gh Th Ques Questi tion on Conc Concer erni ning ng Tech Techno nolo logy gy an
Othe Othe Essa Essays ys
What What Is Call Called ed Thin Thinki king ng
1817
Harper
R ow ow , P u l is is he he rs rs ,
Sa
Ne o rk rk , G ra ra n a pi pi ds ds , P hi hi la la de de lp lp hi hi a Lo do ga or dn ok o,
F r n ci ci sc sc o St. Louis or nt
HOLZWEGE,
c op op yr yr ig ig h
Hege Hegels ls BefP BefPif if de Erfa Erfahn hnmg mg 1 95 95 0 b y V ir ir ro ro ri ri o K lo lo st st er er ma ma nn nn ,
E ng ng l s h t ra ra n l at at io io n o f t h
F. Mart Martin in 70
Heid Heideg egger ger's 's ng
1 97 97 0
ou
w ri ri tttt e
l iE iE GE GE L' L' S
Inc., Row, Row, Publi Publish sher ers, s, I nt nt ro ro du du ct ct io io n Phenomenology of ov
gl
O F E XP XP E. E. RI RI EN EN C
e xc xc ep ep t in
Harper N.Y. N.Y. 10022. 10022. FIRST FIRST H.ARP H.ARPER
1989
ROW
Congre ress ss Cata Catalo logi ging ng-i -inn-Pu Publ blic icat atio io Library of Cong
H ei ei de de gg gg er er , M aarr ti ti n 1 88 88 99- 19 19 76 76 . H eg eg el el ' c on on ce ce p o f e xp xp er er ie ie nc nc e Translation eg el el s B eg eg ri ri f [; H eg pr bl d: ©1970.
de
I. H eg eg el el ,
Data Data
E rf rf ah ah ru ru ng ng , or -p
Row,
I he he l e or or g F ri ri e r ic ic h 1 77 77 0 1 83 83 1 . 2 . E x pe pe ri ri en en ce ce 19 eg el el , G eo eo r i l 1 m F r ie ie dr dr ic ic h I. H eg 1 77 77 00- 18 18 31 31 . P ha ha no no me me no no lo lo gi gi e d e G ei ei st st es es . V or or re re d E ng ng lili sh sh . 1983. II TiLle.
Histor
ISB 89
0-06-063 0-06-06387487410
92
\•
90U7071
k.
pint,
copyright o w P ub ub l s he he r In P h e nm nm f le le n ol ol o g o f S p ir ir i copyright ov ht
C ON ON CE CE P
on
p er er mi mi ss ss io io n
o lu lu m F ra ra nk nk fu fu r
..
~:rt1~n
Heidegger:
"Science of th Experience
of Consciousness"-this
titl Hege gave to hi Phenomenolog publishe perience
is the
of Spirit w he n
wa
in 1807 Th word "experience" appear in bold states what "Phenomenology
is. What
such emphasis We find th answer in th openin t ha t f ol l w s f te r h e p r f ac e I n t h o ri gi n
is in
passag
e di ti on , t h
passag runs Hegel:
INTRODUCTION* 1.
It is
must first come to an understandin
concerning th nature
namely th actual knowledg of what trul in turn, t e d s t o
r eg ar de d a s t h
v a i ou s k in d o f k n w le dg e o f w hi c
Knowledge,
n st r m en t w i
h ic h
o n m i h t b e e tt e
om t ra n l at e b y K en le y R o c e P he no m n o o g of Spri ve by pe n. Th nu ra g i n in g p ar ag ra ph s h av e b ee n a dd e t o . si mp li f i de nt if ic at io n o f t h s pe c f i passage to w hi c H ei de gg er ' c om me nt s h av e r ef er en ce , T he y d o n o a pp ea r i n H eg el ' o ri g n a w or k n or , o f c ou r e , i n M r o ve ' t ra ns la tion. (Ed.)
or ov a mo n
l e i ti ma te , f o b y th
ne
a ki n
an
r ro ne o
ch ic
hi
we
a v g ai ne d t h o u
it.
i l t hu s g ra s c lo ud s o f r ro r i ns te a o f p ar tu re . F o [ i i f w e r e o v f ro m
a cu ]! Il ' agai
d et er mi n t e
in an
co e, th
o nc e
e n t o it, t h us exactl
more precisel determined Indeed this concer will surely itself into th conviction that ther is an absurdit
i n t h C on ce p
e ve n e gi nn i
p ro c s s o f n o l e g e
d es ig ne d t o g ai n o r o ns ci ou sn e knowledg an
th
w hi c
t hi n
h ic h h a b ee n
o nc e
seem legitimate that erro will be graspe instea of
transfor
f ac t h ow e e r t hi s
(in this case th absolute
is for
obviousl superfluou
effort Or [ii], closer
by
limetwig withou bein change at ail, it would surely if
n -i t e lf ,
th absolute Fo if knowledg is th instru
t h t hi n
as it wa before this no
itself woul
be
ruse pretending throug
it multifarious
ment to take hold of th absolute essence,one isimmediately e mi nd e do an
th
th
p pl ic at io n
n o l ea v t h t hi n l te ra ti o
it
fo ou activity bu
it is
a n i ns tr um e
to
u t r in g a bo u
r, if no le ge is no
t hi n s h p in g
relation whic
hi tr th as
i s i n i ts e f , b u
i t i s in an throug
thus effortless Or [iii], if
t h t ru t
th
es lt fo kn wl dg
t o c he s u s is t h r a
bo
t hr ou g
l ig h i t e l r at he r t h
e fr ac ti on ; a n i f h i b e s ub t a ct ed , i mm e i at el y b r n g
represen as
refraction in th medium it is likewise useles to subtract t hi s a ct o f r
r ec ei v
an
of knowledge, whic we no
medium,
n st ru m n t
more or lesspassiv medium throug
is immediat
th examinatio
ou
h ic h it
b e l ef t
it
up it
or
t h o pp o i t o f t s w n e nd ; o r place.
th wa th instrument function migh help overcome this
2.
d if fi c l ty . o r t h
m ea n h il e
wo ld ee
p os si bl e
ge he tr th
an
If
i st r s tf u o f s ci en ce ,
h ic h a k
actually know withou an such hesitations, then on
h o l d n o o ve rl oo k t h
p os si bi li t
r ev e s in g t hi s p ro -
an
trut
ofsom othe sort an that "absolute,
cedure by placin distrust in this very distrust an becoming
e dg e, "
concerne abou anothe question Is no thisfea of erring
ha ye to be discovered
l re ad y t h
t c. , a r
w or d
r e u p o si n
grea deal as truth; it hesita
4.
n e o u d , o f o ur se , s im p
on em
all suc
gether with all t al k a b u t k no wl e g e a s it presupposes notions about knowledge
medium, a n
i ns tr um en t t o
instrument
betwee ourselves and thi knowledge bu abov all, it pre-
of
separate
th
useles
o ti o t ha t t he r i s a difference
ls th
su po es th
b s l ut e
knowledge, though it is
knowledg separate
from th absolute an an absolute
from knowledg will no doub lead to some such
f o i ts el f n d
from th absolute is nevertheless somethin
real
possible to spur wh
presupposition that knowledg is outsid th absolute an therewit
h ic h
r ro r i ts el f As
supposes something, indeed
separate
"knowl
i gn if ic an c
outsid th trut
in i k f as hi o
th
e xc u e s
a r i nc a a bl e o f s ci en c d er iv e r o
hi
uc
th se r e u me d
conditions excuse designed to avoi th toil of scienc an
as well By taking this position zealou effort And, rejectin could, instea
of botherin
thes notion straightway, on to find answer to al this even
with these hi
c o c lu si o
f ol lo w f r
th absolute alon is t ru e T o r ej ec t i t o n m ig h
th ra
th
r e u p o si ti o
t ha t
t h t ru e a lo n i s a bs ol ut e d i t in ct io n
et ee
no l-
b s l ut e
ig
e g n ni n
t o s e t ha t s uc h t al ki n b a
l ea d t o a n
bs ur
a p b l o f y e a no t e r t ru th . B u i st i c ti o 10
et ee
o rd s l ik e " ab s l ut e, " " kn ow le d e ,
"objective ea in
an "subjective" an innumerabl
is ss me
a n f or t w i an
el others whos
b e a mi li a t o e ve r o n
h e i mp r s si on , p ar tl y t ha t t h i r
aim
.'
n o i on s
ea in
or to gi is universally
ar nl
b s l ut e t ru t
fundamenta b et te r r ig ht ,
task namely ow ve
on
to
give this Concept. With stil
c o l d s pa r
hi se
th
e ff o
in whic
scienc
an
nd
is
er ce
t se l
itself is
its m ak e
its appearance.
is an appearance
B u s ci en ce , i n m ak in g i t a pp ea ra nc e
nt ti
of
ed
en
en
it el
this science is th it
a ke s i t a pp ea ra nc e
en
ne
appearance
o th e
el
is
nd
la ce
becaus
bj ct
en
n ow le d
to
it an
en
ed
ie if c,
at al
io
ou
eq
ic
he
e se n a t
ik
en e,
tr
ar
t se l ot
is
by purifyin
ce
it
an
itself lift
is in i t l f ex
ie
at
ug
th
e te d
it
assurance es
t s being;
tr iv
is
as
le an
al
al
a t to it science ia el
ta
ts
al
ed
is
th
is a ct ua ll y t h is
12
error.
a pp ro pr ia te l
In
that
d i s ip at ed ,
is
co pa h,
e al i e d
Co
pt
o f p he no me na l
c on sc io u n es s
S pi ri t b ec o e s a bl e
ef
resolve ion straightway, e' t ea d
nv ti
th
or
e tt e
en is
to
ce
ch
a d is t h
d et ai le d
h is to r
er
io
o f c on sc io us ne ss '
an
7. es
The com~lete system il an
es th
ca io
e at e
ta
es in
ts
th ou
re th
ec
ty
re at ne
ak
in
li
ra
negative
io th
og
is li in
em nt
at al
!ougE.
lo
is no
to
em
th
necessarily
IS
ha
il
co
ep ci
ic
es in
p u r e nothingness
er
that it is the nothing!Les§'
terminate,
that ftom
is only when nothingnes
it f o t he n n ot hi ng ne s
e d a te l
hich it
limitedness
re
consciousness,
is
content. tr ct no
t; an
abin es
in
p re se nt s i ts el f t o it,
tr
an
c ee d
in
lor its.eLLlts- .own Concept, it im-
is
is
ce
is it own, it transcends it self. W it h t h p os it in g
et ng
he tr
determinate nothingnes
i ts el f is
SInce consciousnes
is de-
this nothingness
in
id l,
t ia l i n i ti o
lence at its ow
ci
hands,
is,
io
ha isin
er
rest Should it eg ti
main
in t h
tl
thoughtlessnes ad
er
h ic h i t d es tr oy s
er
try
determinate
is ti
er
v io le nc e t hr ou g
f or .
limited..
fo itsel an] limited satisfactiq_n.
if,
th tr
is a ls o e st ab li sh e
ey
even when it i s o nl y next to
ic
th
th
le ce
an
It
th
il
bl
th
restlessness will
lence. 0.1,. should it
cf its own
c la im s t o f in d e ve ry th in g
t hi s c la i
will
accord.
it goal
..
go ou beyond to. es io at
a.Jlf
t ru t o wa r
e a l ie r
is ag
a l is c o e q e n ti
c ti o
What is I;m.l'ted. to..a n.atura.1
an
it
ed at
is
ce
to
th
di cu t,
e,
an
th
is by .•.. f. power.les to anis
is its death. But
16
i ts el f m ad e it
al
this t s
un
an ng
is
er ta in
ic
t er m n at i n s o f n ow le dg e a n t ru t b ar re n " I, " i s
s at is f c ti o w hi c m us t b e l e t o t se lf , f o
it flee th universa an seek only being-far-itself
ar
a ll e t o m i
the exist in consciousness. Consciousnes distinguishes from i ts el f s om et hi n
h ic h i t a t t h s a
ti
relates itself; [o
consciousness.
r e a rk s
o nc er ni n
t h m an ne r a n
n e e ss i
o f t h p ro -
l at in g
.t
being of somethin
gression it ma also be helpfu to mentio somethin abou
knowledge.
the m e t h o d of carrying ou th inquiry. Fo if this presenta
distinguis
t io n i s v i e e d a s
knowledge is a t t h s a
d es cr ip ti o o f t h w a science is related
to p h e n o m e n a l
th
fo
c on sc io us ne ss ,
is
being-in-itself;
t im e d is t n gu i h e
f ro m it and
and
is posite as existing outside this relationship too..The side
does
of this in-itsel [existin
outsid
not seem possible fo it even
E xa ct l
i nv ol v
presupposition which wil serve as the fundamental standard
need no furthe concer us here Inasmuch as phenomenal
critical examination
investigation
into h e
ea
o f k no w e dg e
of measurement. Fo an examinatio
it
consists in applying
c ce pt e s ta nd ar d a n i n d ec i i ng , o n h e b as i o f i na l
w ha t m ig h
th
relationship
is truth,
in these determinations
knowledg is ou object so at th outset th determinations o f h i o bj ec t a r t ak e
a s t he y i m e di at el y p re se n
h em -
selves an they presen themselves very much as they have what is bein tested is correc or incorrect. Thus th stand-
been taken.
it cepted as th essenc or th in-itself. Bu here wher scienc will make it firs appearance neithe scienc no anything else ha justifie itself as th essence
in-itself; and
1. ha
Wh
w e i nv es ti g t e h e t r t h o f n ow le dg e i t e em s
a r i nv e t ig at in g w h
since knowledge is ou
k no wl ed g i s in itself. But
object in this investigation, it is fO
withou some such basi principl it seem that an examina-
us Therefor
th in-itself o f t h
tion cannot take place.
i nv es ti ga ti o
o ul d n o b e t h
rather it bein 0.
h i c on t a di c i o
fO
b je c r es ul ti n
fr
in-itself of knowledg
ou bu
us What we woul affirm as it essenc
a n i t r e o va l w il l p re se n t he m
selves more distinctly if
T h e ss en c o r t h s t n da r 18
o ul d l i
s , a n t ha t w h c h
recogniz
that standard
in
ct hr
th
ti
another in-itself
en ir
C on ce p
ts
th in
an
ob ec
and being-in-ils-self,
o r u s] , is overcome, ou
precon-
this i nv es ti ga ti on ; es
id
t se l
th ts
ta ar
es
a ti o
ug
ea in
th
ut
il
en al
as
in
th
de er in io
i ts el f
in
io th
ed
in it.
is
only something fo ti
a nd ,
e ac h t h p o
is in and f o ot
ig
be ng or
it; it i s l s
th
t si d
hi
el
i n i ts el f
ip
is in-itself
true,
actual examination.
sciousness itself proposes to measur If w e c al l knowledge
the true
at
t he re fo re ,
s in c
the C o n c e p t ,
ch
ec
an
ot
n sc i
t s ",1£; it is con-
essence
object th object as object, i.e., fOT
f o r c o n sc i ou s ne s s c on sc io u n e
i ts el f i s t he i
c o p ar is on ;
w he th e
i t k no wl -
a n o th e t o r c o n sc i ou s n es s itself. 20
ex
amna io
the C o n c e p t ,
in-itself
c on sc io us ne s
observation. en
ec if
is
An
it knowledge.
21
To be sure th object seem to be fo consciousnes only as consciousnes know it consciousnes seems, as
it
were,
is i n i ts el f
sciousness also seem unable to examin by comparin
Therefor
con-
n l a n e xa mi na t o n o f n ow le dg e b u a ls o o f
th standard used in th examinatio
itself
its own knowledge
sex
it with th object Bu th difference betwee
th in-itsel an
th for-itself is
l re a
r es e
i n t h v er y
i se s o n i t
e lf -
consciousness is to it
i t k no wl ed g a s w el l a s its object-is, me
fact that consciousnes know an object at all. Something is the in-itself, b u h e k no wl ed g o r t h b ei n o f t h o b ject fo
h os e s ta nd ar d i t w a s u p os e t o b e f ai l
to endure th course of th examination. Thus th examination is n o
no is f o r c o ns ci ou s ne s s
changed if t ha t
it, precisel that whic
In this connection ther is
is called experience.
moment in th just mentione
r oc es s w hi c m us t b e f ur t e r
r ti c l at e
th
ne
l ig h
if, c om pa ri s n , t h t w m o e nt s d o n o c or re sp o d , t he n it
sentation Consciousnes knows something,
s ee m
ha
i n o rd e atio
o ns ci ou s e s
il
b r n g i t i nt o a cc or d
av
t o a lt e i t k n w le dg e
is t h e s e nc e
it
h e b je c I n t h a l e r
itself for consciousnes
of th knowledge, however, th object itself become
to consciousnes somethin a s w el l
whic
o r t h k no wl ed g
e xi st e
w a e ss en ti al l
k no wl ed g o f h e o bj e t : w it h c ha ng e i n t h k no wl ed ge , a s a n e ss e t ia l
part of this knowledge. Henc it come to pass fo consciousin-itself isnot in itself or
h a w a i n i ts el f w a s o n l
e ss .
When therefor
consciousnes find it knowledg no cor-
r es po n i n
it
b je ct , t h
b je c i t e l
i l a ls o i v
ut hi
an
t hi s o bj ec t
b je c i s a ls o h e in this
t r t h c om e i nt o p la y W e s e t ha t c on sc io us ne s in-itself a n
ha in fact been altere
w hi c
t h o bj ec t a ls o e co me s a n o th er , s in c
wi
t h in-itself.
b e in g ~f o r- co n sc io u sn e J
o f t hi s i n- it se l f
ow ha
t h s ec on d is the
T h l at te r s ee m a t
firs to be merely th reflection of consciousnes into its self, representation no of an object bu only of it knowledg of th firs object But, as alread indicated, th firs object come to be altere c ea se s t o b e t h
fo consciousnes in this very process; it
i n- it s l f a n in-itself
b e o me s t o c o s ci o s ne s a n only fo
it. A n
follow that this th b e in g -f ar -c o ns c io u sn e s
t h r ef o
it
o f t hi s i n- it se lf , essence or
22
consciousness' new object. a nn ih i a ti o throug 15
o f h e f ir s
wa of observin is th same as th on previously discusse it is th
experience constitute
that firs object
with regard to th relationship betwee
th presen inquir
an skepticism In ever case th result whic emerge from
I n t hi s p re se nt at io n
t h c ou rs e o f x pe ri en ce , t h r e
is
s ol v i nt o a n e mp t
n ot hi n n e
u t m us t o f n ec es si ! e su l it if,
graspe as th nothingnes o f h a w ho s
it
result
agreemen with th ordinary us of th term "experience. T hi s m o e n i s t h e t ra ns it i
f ro m t h f ir s
b je c a n t h
Within th presen context,
circumstance manifests it-
knowledg of that object to th othe object Although it is this o th e r o b je ct , here
object sink to th leve of bein to consciousnes i n -i ts e l
knowledg of th firs object or th being-for-consciousnes
f or -c on sc io u sn e s
o f t h f ir s i n- it s l f i s s ee n t o b e o m t h s e o n o bj ec t i t
An with this ne
self By contrast it usuall seem that we someho a n o th e
o bj ec t i n
o us , a n
th
ma ne
w e x pe ri en c
u it e a c i de nt a
of th
i n- it se lf , then this is th ne
object
ne
discover
n d e xt ra ne -
in it
knowl-
b e c om e s
being-
object
Shap of consciousnes also to
somethin differen from that whic wa th essenc to th p r c ed in g S ha p
I t i s t hi s c i c u s ta nc e w hi c
g ui de s t h
entire succession of th Shapes of consciousnes in it necesexperience, is t he re f r e s im pl y t h
pu
apprehension
of
sity Bu it i s t h ne
presen investigation, however, th ne
object show itself
n ec es si t a lo ne -o r
latter's knowin
ho
on
'*
sciousness
is ou
t se l
Th
contribution
a y o f o bs er vi n
h e u bj ec t m a t e
it does no exist fo th consciousnes
this
its i n- it se l
an
f or -u s is thereb
c o s ci ou sn es s
introduced into th movement
o me n w hi c
whic weobserve.But when viewed in this wa th sequence
fo th consciousnes engage
of experience constitute
the content
level of As
by consciousnes is raised to th
o m r eh en d
scientifi progression. m at te r o f f ac t
h e c ir c m s a nc e 24
h ic h u id e t hi s
he emergence of th
object presenting itself to consciousnes withou th
w ha t
d oe s n o
r es e
it el
in th experience itself Bu
s e e me r i n
x is t [o
it,
n l t h f or ma l a sp ec t o f w ha t e m r ge s o r i t
pur emerging. F o r c o ns c io u sn e ss , what ha emerge exists 25
as
to us
j ec t
Heidegger:
becoming.
TH
IR
E CT IO N
science. the e xp er ie nc e
from itself
o f c on sc io u sn e ss .
aw6 (Aristotle at
an
cc
in
in it lf
ep
in
cu ia
le
te
ie ce
an
in te es
le
ng as
te
nd
co
hi
i st e c e
io
iv il
ea
nt
is only fo
o f i ts el f w il l t he re fo r
f in al ly , w he n c on sc io us ne s il in ca
t se l
it
s ci ou sn es s p re se nt at io n
th
at
an
1 , 1 00 3
ap ar
in
what is p re se nt ,
ar
®€Wpro.
en es
l, in
e al i
ir
«o f)'
a il s co ea ed
i n i t p re se nc e
e se n
of looking
V7Tapxovra
ve
il C on te mp la ar
it
as
of hi
an
tu
it
e si d
self-consciousness. is le tu
co
p hi lo so ph y w hi c o f r ea so n
el
ti
th
lo
it and
c on ve rg e w it h
i t e l ~.£S ab lu
Met.
TOVT€p
i n i t r el at io ns hi p
S ha pe s o f C o ns ci ou sn e ss . its
us
er
contemplates
on ci
ey ar
n es s o r a s t hi s c on sc io u n es s i ts el f a pp ea r
toward
Kat -ro:
an
k no w
t ha t t h
t ha t it i s t h c on sc io us ne s
i nd ep en de n
p ro du c
o f e lf , e lf -c on sc io us -
ew
od
he
is thinking
in pl
thinking
proceeding
from in
t s fundamentu
ee
must, qua
absolutum.
Absolute
an
necessaril
fails
ef
i t If
l at e
ed
is the is conis
e d only
er
fundamentu
is
ir
th
o f u nc on di ti on a as
is
ic
e se n
it lf
s el f- kn ow le dg e
gs
th
a ct i l y
an
ta nt
R ea l k no wl ed g
te
If an
is
absolutu
ed
o f b ei ng s
th
te
ic
is estab-
t il l
c ou l
try
co
th
if
ul
an
in its absoluteness is
am
l is he d i n t h ke in
in the em
lo
er
r eq ui re s o f i ts el f in
l an d o f s el f- co n c io us ne ss ,
th th
li
of
we eliminat
p r io r i certainty
tr
gain an understanding ef
an
th
kn
le
it knows absolutely
it is doing.
thing, it e c io od
w hi c
es
es ar
es of a lo n
co ta
re
ze a ti o
nd
le t, am ec el
i s s ui te d t o a bs ol ut e k no wl ed ge .
at
e sc ar te s
e, examination
is
ls an
is be
at em co er
cr ti al th
nc io us
ll al in tr
in
is
th
is all t hi s c ri ti ca l a d
ol e.
a bo u
lr dy
ed
ch
k no wl -
it s ee m
rs
e tt l
es
ai
e tt e
cr iq
im
it ca
at
a mi n
ed
te Absolute
in
en
would is
ll th
cr ti al
ie em nt
an
ti
on
is "in
i sc a i n
to
an
lo
te ab
ak
e xa mi na ti o
te
present-to-us, bs lu
th
isto
cc pt an
is
ng
this parousia, in
thi
ec iv it
th
te is
ei
Advent, is
l f If p hi lo so ph y a s t h k no w! -
th
ar
io
Hegel: 2. If
an ed
fo
t io n i ts el f e xh ib it s
in it
co
cr ti al
if
in ap it
(-m1povO'ta.)
th
ne l,
e l is
t.
il
n o b e t h A bs ol ut e
Only
lo en
rn
in
it,
A bs ol ut e w ou l
t ha t
er
en
ed ti
i t is
is, seeing
US
d if fe re n
n at ur e
or
a ct u l y
it ut an
t he n o n s ho ul d n o o ve rl oo k t h
ch
p os si bi li t
it ti o f r ev er si n
terr firma o n w hi c
it
mental
el ce ai ty
distrust
e se n a ti o
in
e sp e
To take complete possession
a t it represents.
t se l a n
As te
t,
is ea
es
in
nd
on
ai
t h is
qua
knowledge an
le
e n a ll y
il
is
no
it presupposes
notions about
knowledge
instrument
medium, b e tw e e
it
difference o u rs el ve s a n
h i k n ow le d ge ; nd on on
lu
is o n h e o th e s id e for itself th
ab
te
ne er
ch
un
is th
lo
i ti o
en ir -k
par
science
dg
tu kn
he dg
excellence.
philosophy
d e and
pr
ar ed
th
Philosophy
that knowledge, an
ed lt
le
its e sp i
ts
o si ti o
at
le
is outis e , t h subiectum, the
VrrOKeLP,&OV,.
its
Heidegger: THE SECOND SECTION t o h e
philosophy sinc
is present.Phi-
l os op h th
whic
ha
b ec om e s ci en c
b ec au s
it remains philosophy.
it ci way
s op hi ca l c ri ti qu e o f k no w l ed ge . H eg e n o l on ge r u se s t h t er m "philosophy"
in
every j ec t
ns
en at th
is
r e s c a g it an s and in
is so is
33
es s el f T h r el at e
ha
s ub je c
it
t o i ts el f i n t h
ep
t hi s r ep re se nt at io n nt ti
is
el
ei
in
i ll i
il is
ts y,
ei
os
ll
ts
R ep re se nt in g
as of
rather,
it means:
philosophy is
is only s uc h t ha t it
ge
on ci
lo
te
to th
predicate;
no le
Abso-
en
a ti o
(7Ta.povu[a).
e se n
as
ay
it
ic ch ac er j ec t
e la t
i ts el f p re se nt s i ts el f as subject.
t h s ub je c
ad
ti
m od e o f r ep re se nt at io n
o bj ec t of representing
p re se nt s t h
tu
ei
ll
As
losophy, as b s l u
kn
le e, issc en
to
en if
ec us
t , it
ei je ts
f-
u nc on di ti on a
ta ty
is
lf
ti ed
th
is
l li n
er
t h m od e o f b e in g ( O l ] U L a . )
s el f- kn ow le dg e- i
Philosophy
is science in that
w it h i t task. " Su c ec
je tn
e.
tu kn
as
un th
le e,
e ct ,
ec at
ec
ce ed
ed
el
en e.
in
o f t h k in d t ha t t ra di ti on a
el be te
being
that represents beings as beings-i
n co nd it io na l ec te
s el f- a a re ne ss , lu
le
b ei n
es
it
gl
il
is
en
knowledge
c5v)
of th
Philosophy
te th
e st i a b
au
t ha t h a
u nh es it at in gl y
b ee n p o i te d in
is ll
in its absolute-
34
a ti o
amna io
itself science.
t h s ub je ct ne s lu
uc
te
exists insofa presentation
is its
be tu io
j ec t a s ei
in
absolutely knowing, it stays
h e i ta ti on s, " el
er
(T
th
el
in
is
e ct n
er in
ti al
on ti te
t se l
rank: scientific research.
so?
35
t-
of
soon as knowledg
is a k
be
an
ru en confines of its
perousia, et
en
lu
an
in
e ct .
it.
ta ly
ep at
ot r,
it ca
ur
it as th eb
io
th
am
bs lu e. im
lu
ev
c ti n
r i i ci s
ra
is really th
er
The
uncritical If
is it isno
ea
he
what is ca
lu en Oil.
ee in manipulate
if th
o wl e
ar
lo
a ti o
eq
es th
ed
ta
in
this r es t o n
e d its self-examina-
er
ha
ed
at
parousia
ie ce
Abso-
is a i
ec io
is
a s c er ta in ,
a lt ho ug h it
ra c er ta in .
th
certainty
is t il l s up po se d t o u b i s
nd io
el
er ai ty
ll
T hi s en creatu lu
th
a t is
eg cogito
e n s c e rt u m is supposed to be certai
ex po
Hegel:
th
a bs ol ut e a lo n
is abso-
is
independentl
facto be secure
throug
ed
bs lu e,
c h is t h
ai
en e,
it ju
es
te
ad
o..C it ca
ce
an
ea .Bu
withou
th Absolute
It e ve n a pp ea r
t o t hi n
it .is i na cc e s ib le , a n
i n a cc or da nc e t hu s
e em in gl y
or
at
bs lu e,
le e,
e tc .
dis-
under-
covered, 37
Heidegger: THE
e rt a n t sa s:
THIRD SECTIO
h e A bs ol u
a l n e i s t ru e T h
true alon is absolute Thes statements ar se down with
f o i ts el f
object Th
th
n e- si de d r e r es en ta ti o
th
detachment allows this mode of representation
p er si s i n s u
a y t ha t t h r ep r s en ta ti o
n o l on ge r
depend exclusivel on it object This self-detachmen
of
self-certainty from it relation to th object is it absolution I t i s h ar a t er i t i
t hi s a bs ol ut i
grounds, it constantly move away from thei ground Th
relation if i t n l r ef er s t ra i h tw a
s t t em en t
solution is
a r u ng ro un de d
ut no
r bi t a r
i n t h s en s
t ha t i t p pl i
to an
t o t h o bj ec t T h a b
h a i t is only becaus it complete itself in ever
of random assertions Th statements cannot be grounded
respect, tha is absolves itself wholly In absolvin it ab
T he y h a
solution, the self-certainty of representation attain security,
st te
th
w hi c
i ts e
r ov id e g ro un d f ir s o f
whic fo it mean th freedo v er y n a t r e i t i s t o w il l t o b e i t u s E ve r s in c m od e is terra firma, trut which is know
it el of th
p h l os o h y a s s e o o o n
ha
or it
ha held sway as certainty. True is that in unconditiona
self-awareness Earlier,
adequatio rei et intellectus. Truth is
property of representation But, bein certainty,
t ru t
is intellectual representation itself insofa as th
no
intellec represents itself an
assure itself of itself as repre-
ofitsnature It frees,acquits
n e- s d e d ep en de nc e
t hu s
w n k no wl ed ge , n d h a d on e s o in it ow eyes
i t o bj ec ts , a n
f ul l d et ac h e nt )
an
absolution
on th strength of full detachment
(th
(detach-
achievement
(the freein
acquitta
ar what characterize
absoluteness have th characte of representation of unconditiona
of
self-certainty
i t o w a bs ol ut io n T h u ni t o f absolving
ment from th relation), i t c o m p le t io n
there is the parousia o f t h A b o lu t i ts e o f i t
po
th shee representing of these. Unconditiona
In them
T h t r e , i n t h s en s
self-certainty is th Absolute alone. Th
absoluteness here described, of mental self-representation, al particularized representation
of objects. It adhere no
l on ge r t o o bj ec t i n o r e r t o p os se ss t h t r
by th
ad er
ence Knowledg detaches itself from th relation to objects. Mental representation
knowin
detaches itself (absolvere)
ro
is alone wha is true.
et an
e xp la na t o n
o we ve r e l b or at e
is the P h e -
itself as it ow provider it ne
t o f in d u ff i i en t
l ea ve s t he s
statements empty. In fact it even increase th misunder lo
Spirit. Th
phenomenolog
of th spirit is
in its presentation. This i s w h
e ge l
ut
h e s ta te me nt s
unde th suspicio that it assert itself absolutely as abso
down baldly despit th risk of seemin arbitrary. Still, he
lute knowledge, bu fail to produc
make
violates most flagrantly that very clai
th
statements
in
science, as absolute knowledge, wills. Science, in it way,
p r t en d
Absolute, in
decide of what th examinatio
to.
say
to
t ri bu na l c a
th knowers, ther is fo us.only absolute truth. Therefore,
ingly, th task is once agai
a n o n w h s ti l
of th Absolute
x is t o th e k in ds . o f t ru t
of certaint
e e t o p ur e p er f c ti on .
now: becaus th Absolute ha this will,and becaus we ar a y t ha t t he r
its credentials. It thus
whic it
c ie n e , t h r ef o e ,
ofscience isto consist.Tha
n l b e t h parowia of th Absolute Accord to make plai th absoluteness
to. Itself sented th Absolute Bu as long as we seemingl prompted by concer
an
prudence make th distinctio
a bs ol ut e t r t h a n o th e t ru th s i st in ct io n principl
of criticis
judged Ye th
w it h t hi s d is ti nc ti o
e an i
it
an
betwee an
a r a dr i
in an obscur
o bs cu ri t
is
th criterio
of th
o rd s t h
4 . O n c ou l o ti o
o f o ur s
s im pl y c o d em : a l s u
c ci d n ta l a n
a rb it ra r
an
u s l es s
c as t t he m o u
by whic scienc is
is incumben upon scienc alon to establis
"truth," "objective," an
Hegel:
throug
whic we discover th truth, an so o.n-sinc
b so l t e, " " kn ow le dg e, "
"subjective,
To do so however,
b so l t e
n d a n a bs ol ut e s e a ra t
fr
k no wl ed g
its
parousi« o f t h A b o lu t - i
m us t b e w it h i t
science,
b so lu te ne s
agains th very nature of scienc even to become involved with an doubts an r ea l
a n b en ea t
clea of unfittin
tion of knowledge. It woul
also be possible to spur
If this is right, then it is
considerations that remain outsid th t h l ev e o f t ru th . If scienc thus keep
critical doubts it will nonetheles remain
a pa bl e
s ci e c e d er iv e f ro m s uc h
lions, excuse designed to avoi
g iv e a t t h
r es u e d c o d i
th toil of scienc an
a m t im e t h i m r es si o o f a rn es t a n
zealou effort And rejecting these notion straightway, 41
h is , e v
r eg ar d a s e ce pt iv e l h u s o f
o rd s b ou n
up with thes notions, word like "absolute, edge," as well as "objective
an
"knowl
"subjective" an in
p le te l d if f r en t
ay
k n w in g t o
knowledge is as5urance
familiar to everyone Fo to give th impression partly th
t he i m e n in g i s u ni v r sa l
f am il ia r
nd pa tl
that it forc reside in it being;
r at h
l ik e a n a t e mp t t o a vo i t h f un da me nt a it
s ti l
t se l i s
b e a vo id e
o r t h s e c on st it ut e n o
i t a p e ar an ce , is
pearance itself it is no ye scienc in it full realized science it make
an
ed
er
in
kn
is the
it appearance
better
whic issai to be presen in untrue knowledge, pointng th
a y t ow ar d s c e nc e f or , i n t h first place, this
n o l ed g
o ul d b e t o i ts e f , b u a s i. .,
b a m od e o f its
it is p ro po si n
t o u n e rt a
e sc r p ti o
o f k n w le dg e
nomenon. Heidegger:
othe untrue knowledg it mode ofappearance isthere fore
k no wl i ve s a s
ca scienc refe to th intimation of somethin
i t e xi st s i n u n r u
scienc makes its appearance.
appearance becaus
declar
an
a nd , s ec o d ly , t hi s r ef er en c
B u s ci en ce , i n m a i n
woul
t as k
e tt e r ig ht ,
taking notice of such notion an expressions, by whic s ci en c
it
ut he un ru
to that on himsel possessesthei Concept, does seem n am el y t o i v t hi s C o c ep t
h ic h t h o th e
matter of indifference Bu scienc must free itself
FOURTH
SECTION
points to what is r e u ir e
of s, th
knowers, by th will prevailing in th parousia of th Abso
from this semblance, an it ca only do so by confront in th semblanc je
un ru
or
itself Fo scienc cannot simply re o f n ow le dg e 42
m e e l c om m
Curren critical analysis of philosophica knowledge assume withou furthe inquir that this knowledg isa means, an 43
t hu s r ev ea l b ot h i t i gn or an ce . o f a bs ol ut e k no wl ed g
to a ch ie v
incapacity ep
or
al
i nc ap ac it y to
it Th
ri
paTousia
ic lt is no
a s is
th
bein
absolven
t or n s ta t
absolves itself-is th labo
w hi c
is
arises
p a ro u si a . .
grasping itself in
ze lo
us es
ng
of unconditiona
It is it
el ti
p re he n i o
el
it lf on th
in
pe
as the
t ic a
p ar t of t h
ex
at n,
t oi l o f s ci en ce :
be critically examined
is a bs ol ut e
k no wl ed ge ,
e an s is philoso-
w hi c
ch
na re
is
th
tree.
hi
it do
ev
t se l
xa in
is en
e st a l i
th
it is constantly
talking.
ab
lu en s tr en gt h
le
o s d if fi cu l
while in r e l it y e v y t n g el co
e la t o n
t oi l o f c ie nc e
toil of scienc
self-certainty
ot er
however, shirks t h
pasousia. A cc or di ng ly ,
to
th
de
parousia, and
la io
el gs
.i il
parousia,
ts
lu
th
parousia
first
parousia insofar as it is the relation
toil of science
to jake
US
it c-
porousia o f t h A bs ol ut e is
l se ,
is
n o a ll o
an
c ei v
o f u nc on di ti on a
ofself-com-
This sort of examinatio
em ty
if
ie ce
s el f- ce rt ai nt y
pe an ve
it lf th
o wl tr
le
itself 45
must exer ever effort to maintain itself in it ow nature if
tion arises what that appearance is in whic c a a pp ea r T o p pe a
alon scienc
e an s f ir st , t o e me rg e i d b y s id e
make it Ow appearance withou an critical pourparlers?
with othe things in th mode of self-assertion To appear
A t t hi s p oi nt , h ow e e r i n t h m id dl e o f t h s ec ti on , H e e l raises th decisive "But":
m e n s f ur th e
"Bu science, in making its appearance, is an appearanc t se lf .
S ci en c e me rg e j u
l ik e a n
t he r k no wl ed ge . I t
is absolute knowledg be
fore whic
all o th e n ot io n
t o c om e o rt h t o o cc ur , n d
o cc ur r n g
appear mean to presag somethin whic itself ha no ye a pp ea re d o r e ve r w il l p pe ar . T he s m o e s o f a pp ea ri n remain inappropriat
to science' making it entrance
fo
u s v an is h B u b y p uf f n g
in thes modes, scienc ca neve displa itself as itself an
itself up in this fashion, scienc puts itself on th very same
soestablis itselfcompletely. On th othe hand neithe ca
le el as th
e m t y a pp ea ra nc e
o f k no wl ed ge .
h es e a r k no wl ed ge . I t
t he re ; t h
n e s su r n c
is
must brin
us
fort
r in g i t e l f or t i nt o i t t ru t
this
r ut h i ts el f I n e ve r
h as e i n w hi c
assurances will neve make th living sa of real knowledg
scienc come forth, scienc itself s te p f or t
scienc migh distinguis itself from th empt
appearance appropriat
appearance
u t a ls o a b o lu t
to science, therefore, must be that
of knowledge. It coul poin ou that it itself istha knowl-
in whic scienc presents itself in bringing itself fort
ed
i th i
thus establishing itself as knowledg that appears. Scienc
h ic h
c a m ak e i t e nt r n c
w hi c
un ru
k no wl ed g
i ts el f S c e nc e o ul d i n r od u untrut
n wi t i ng l
s ee k
i t e l a s h e t ru t
of
nl
t hi s
ay th
an
i t e rf o m s t h
contains an intimation Bu then scienc woul only
lapse again int mer assurances. Besides, it woul then clai that it emerge in
m an ne r w hi c i s n o
scienc as absolute knowledge. Ther t h t ru e ha
e r b e o mi n t o
is
vast difference
entrance trul
as itself
In it appearance scienc presents itself in th fullness of
a n f o i ts el f h e s it ua ti o
its
it w he n s ci en c m ak e i t
When it make it entrance it
u s a p e ar .
n tr a c e
a tu r
v an is h
he he
m pt y
p pe ar an c
i t i s e je c e d
o f k no wl ed g
m er el y
u t t h q ue s 47
i sr e a rd ed .
oe no n de ed ,
vanish bu to ente full into it appearance It then appear as untrue knowledge, that is as knowledg whic isnot ye true within th trut
of absolute knowledge. Th presenta
i o o f p he no me n
n ow le dg e m us t t u
a g i ns t h e s em -
pearance in whic scienc brings itself forth, bu must do so
the Absolute is with us th Absolute is bein present. In itself thus bringn g i ts el f o rw ar d t h A bs ol ut e i s f o i ts el f F o
th willof th parousia alone, the presentation of knowledge as
phenomenon is necessary The presentation is bound
t o r em ai n t ur ne d t o a r sentatio
wise, if mer semblance is simply rejected as false, it ha no been apprehende
even in it mere semblance. To be sure
even th step-by-step entrance scienc make neve consists in scienc
merely overcoming semblance. If
wo ld re ai
th
o nd ag e
u nt r t h T h a pp ea ra nc e
h e s ak e o f
is itself
th
il of th
b so lu te . T h p re -
willing, that is,
striving bu th action itself if it pull itself together within must consider what this presentation is, in what wa it
way-that
be i n t ha t s am e
,so
is, able to carr ou th presentation
of scienc ha it necessit in that radiance which eve illusion need to be mere semblance. H eg el ' s t t em en t
"B
s ci en ce , i n
a ki n i t a pp ea r
Hegel:
ance, is l of t
u rp os e S ci en c i s n o
s en s i n w hi c
th
e re l a n a p e ar an c
m pt y a p e ar i
too, is an appearance-.o!impl that bein
o f u nt ru e k n w le dg e
by appearin
s ci e c e i s i n i ts el f a l e ad y a p e ar an c
in th
at all. Rather
t h r ad ia n
Th
parousia
a pp ea ra nc e
is a ut h n ti c
ha fo it presentation
itself seem to be unscientific for, unlike free science, it this p oi n o f v ie w
pathwa of th
ra me ns
presence in th full brillianc of self-presenting representat io n
r es e t at i
t h u ni qu e s en s
absolute knowledge, it is
u s T o p pe a b y v ir tu e
this
object only phenomenal knowledge, th
r es en c
i ts e f : t h
of th Absolute In keepin with it absoluteness
of th natura
consciousnes whic
th
is striving
which is ow transformation
as throug
very nature
li
waystation prescribed
that it may, by purifyin
i ts el f t o t h l e e l o f S pi ri t a n
itself
a tt ai n c og ni za nc e o f
what it is in itself throug
th complete
experience of
it ow self
p ar al le l t o t h a pp ea ra nc es , t h
h en om e a , i t i s
p at h o f
experience Empiricism whic pursue data deserves to be preferre
Heidegger:
by al form of knowledg over mere construction
an deduction. Th presentation of phenomenal knowledge, uutiates that consideration. Scienc
phenomenology, lets itself be guided by th phenomena. It
itself, in presenting phenomena] knowledge, must by mean
follow th path of experience It ushers natura representa
o f t ha t p re se n a ti o
t io n s t
c o p le t
an
p pe ar an c
th
o ur s o f i t a ch ie v i t o w
T hu s i t d o
no ma
b lu st e i n
entrance just anywhere It entrance consists in its identify-
b y s te p i nt o h e d om ai n o f t h s c e nc e o f p hi l s o
phy. This is indeed ho p he no me n
whic this identification take place? Wher elsebut before th eyes of natura
natura
matter
with th presentation
representation
Natura
representation remain
of al
representation This representation fol-
lows phenomenal knowledg step by step throug
th multi-
fariousnes of it appearances, an thus follow throug
al
the waystations in whic
merely phenomenal knowledg
divest itself of semblanc
unti it finall
true knowledge. Th
presents itself as
presentation of merely phenomenal
absolute knowledge? No That whic nomena knowledge, whic tru
b e i ev e t o t h
absolute knowledge. Th
itinerarium, t h d es cr ip ti o
presentation of merely phenome-
na knowledg is th path of natura
consciousnes toward
e ca us e t h s em bl an c o f u nt r t h f al l a wa y
in t u
presents itself before i l s up po se dl y l ea d t o
knowledge is mere semblance. Ye even philosophy
knowledg escort natura representation up to th gate of
s ci e c e A n
stan
n ow le dg e i f w e l oo k a t i t w it h t h e y
d a t ha t t h Phenomenolog
everyday consciousnes to
of Spirit i s a n
j ou r e y w hi c
il ea
scientific knowledg of philoso-
phy. However, what th Phenomenolog
of Spirit so underin essence. Bu this
soul's purification into Spirit Th
presentation of merely
phenomenal knowledg is an itinerariu h a c ou l
be
or
e lc om e t o a tu r
mentis in Deum o ns ci ou s e ss ,
error is no accidental It follow in t h t ra i
of th
essence, overtake an
by itself th
thus conceals it Take
o ok '
impression is misleading Th natura representation whic ha here crep into philosophy take phenomenal knowledg
j ou rn e
al ng th
p at h
i nc e t h p at h s o d es c i be d r un s
51
appearin
knowledg hold itself in concealment. Bu th
presentation is by no mean th presentation of merely phe-
presentation Th presentation of phenomenal knowledg is no
at
t ha t
a tu r
c o s ci o s ne s
a n t re ad . N o i s i t
from true knowledge,
path whic with each step gain distance from natura con-
th true knowledg to whic th presentation is stil to lead
sciousness an then somewher or othe alon th wa ends
us Rather
up in absolute knowledge. Bu th
nomena knowledg as distinguishe
th presentation is merely th presentation of
phenomenal knowledg in it appearance
This "merely"
does no sa that th presentation isnot ye science=.i says is n o y e s ci en c i n a n e sp ec ts . T h a pp ea ra nc e o f
phenomena
presentation is
nonetheless; it nonetheles runs constantly to an "in-between" that prevails betwee
natura
fr in an
consciousnes
and knowledge
knowledge is
presentation of phenomenal knowledge, in it appearance is itselfscience. From th moment in which the presentation begins it already is science. Hege says "I
t ha t t hi s r es en ta ti o knowledge, th
as fo it
view of th fact
b je c o nl y h en om en a
presentation itself seem to be unscientific
Hegel: 6. Natura
consciousnes will show itself to be merely th
Concep of knowledge, or unreal knowledge. Bu sinc i t i m e di at el y t ak e i ts el f t o b e r e
it
presentation is
nl
d ev el op in g i n
k no wl ed ge , this
s c e nc e n o d oe s h e is
sit
essence, canno be itinerarium,
is usually
However, th presentation does no by an mean guid natura representation throug
th museum of th shapes of
understood by "doubt," i.e. entertaining
consciousness, in
t hi s o r t ha t p re su me d t ru t
on
t hr o g h
" t u th "
h a b ee n a pp r p ri at el y dis-
it
s pe ci a d oo r
i t f ir s
missesnatura
te
nt
a bs ol ut e k no wl ed ge .
a th er ,
if no before then th presentation dis-
consciousnes as that consciousnes whic
n c t h " do ub t
sipated, so that in h e e n
t o e tu r
disbelie in
m at te r s ta n
t o h a s am e r et t
uc is
in
it very characte remain wholly incapabl of followin th 53
whic direct itselfto th whol compas ofphenomenal whic
is in t ru th , o nl y h e u n e al i e d
therefor this thoroughgoin
o n e pt . A n
skepticism is no that de
consciousness, Spirit become able fo th firs time to examin what trut e sp a
vice with whic an earnes zealot ma imagin himsel
is Fo this skepticism brings abou
o ve r n o i on s t ho ug ht s a n
o pi ni on s w hi c
ar called natural, an it is of no consequenc whethe resolve no to foun scienc on authority, surrendering
onesel to th thoughts of others bu rather to examin
whe consciousnes engage in the examination straight-
everything fo onesel an
way, it isstill filled an
follow only one' ow con-
o ti o
viction, or better yet, to produc everything by onesel
an
burdened with thes "natural
t ha t i s w h i t i s i n a ct , i nc ap ab l o f w ha t
it want to undertake. sequence of Shapes throug is th
ow educatio
whic consciousnes passes
detailed histor
of consciousness'
to th leve of science. An wherea that
r es ol v a ss um e t ha t e du ca ti o resolution as somethin
ma
Heidegger:
THE
SIXT
SECTIO
b eg in s t o i nd i a t t h p a
th
re
b e t re a e d l i
immediatel
dispense
with
presentation necessaril move to brin phenomenal knowledge to ligh as phenomenal Accordingly, th sectio open
actually carrie it through.
w it h
ha
aspect belong together an what constitute th ground of
to gi
o ne se l o v
v er si o o f o pi n o n o u o f p er s n a
t o a ut ho ri ty ; b u b y t h c on -
e l o n a ut ho ri t
i nt o o pi ni o h el d
o nv i t io n t h c on te n o f w h
is no necessaril altered, an trut
i s h el d
does no necessaril
d is ti nc ti o
t h i r u ni ty . twee natura
h ic h e me rg e f ro m e ct i
u r f ir s t as k is consciousnes an
Hege uses th
o f o pi n o n a n
p re ju di c
it
base himsel on th authorit c o v ic t o n t h
on
i ff er en c
a tt e
l it tl e w h t he r o n
f oc u o n t h d is ti nc ti o
be
real knowledge.
term "consciousness
t o e si gn at e h e s am e
t o s ec ti o
an
h e t w e xp li c t e e a
"knowledge o th er .
be
consciou mean to be in th stat of knowledge. Knowledg
of others or on personal i s t h v an it y w h c h i s
"being in bein conscious. In that stat ar especially that
represents-s-and th knower himsel wh represents as well
represented. Thi is t h m od e i n s en te d t ha t w hi c h av e b ei ng , a n
know however, means: oidi, sigh of something, gained insigh into something. Th
peris
u nd er st oo d h er e a s a vi n whethe
This
t er m b ei n
n d t h a c o f e pr e e nt in g
t he y b el on g t og et he r c on sc io us " s pe a
" b i ng .
s o e th i
representation
b ef or e
in me ta
presents
regardless
sound.
It
a ys : b ei n p re se n i n t h
o d o f h e g at he ri n
used also.means by long accustomed usage, th bein
non-sensibly in ou though or will or feelings To represen i s t o s ig h f ro m t h start.•t o a tc h s i h t o f
idea,
percepHo. Percepti
h a is seen; it is take up some
is in th mode of knowin
lies an
is "subject -tha
thus accompanie
all consciousness: "subject"
is t ha t i ts el f w hi c
sure of it Representation prevails in all t h m o e s
us that whic refers to. itself what it b a
sciousness. It is neithe mere contemplatio sens of conceptual judgment
gathers (co-agitat)
no ye
c on -
ha
that is presen whic
In
e e s ee n is being present. Con-
scientia i s t h g at h r in g i nt o p re s n c
t h k in d in which
is represented. Representing
i n i t r ep re s n ti ng , p ut s t hi n
b ef or e
u t b e o r u s a nd .
think-
Representation
f ro m t h s ta r i nt o a n " I a v s ee n. "
wh
whic under-
henc precedes everything else is always alread
present, an
thin that is present, as such,explores it, scrutinizes it, makes
t hi sg at he ri n
itself
that is
what is
ing in th
u t t hi s
,"
is
representation
Th
r ep r s en t re
h ic h t ha t w hi c is repre-
as th
of representation Th Bein of th subjec whic precedes everyth.ing that is represented, insofa as it reflects th subjeer-objec relation within itself is called subjectness. Sub [ectness is p re s n c i n t h m od e
. f r e r es e t at io n T o b e
presen in th stat of representednes mean that somethin
it appears in the
presents itself in knowledg as knowledg brings th sight, th image, into presence Representation is
sens of emerging into an unconcealedn.ess somethin
th in-gathering of th imag whic prevails in knowledg
i s t he r
understood as having sighte th image: imagination. To be consclou mean to be presen in th in-gathering of what is h e G re e
extant Gree
ot6..,
EZ6""
su
knour, i! th perfec tens of th no actually
(Ed.
C o s ci ou sn es s
h ic h a pp ea r
e in g c on s i ou s
that
s uc h is that
i n i t e lf . A p e ar a c e i s t h d ir ec t p re se n
of consciousnes or knowledge in of th appearance is formed within an itself as it arena. It ma by no
by th appearance
have become cleare what
tl
e se n t i
en
al
le
an knowledge, or unreal knowledge. Natura
ep
ed ch
lf
its a pp ea ra nc e
ea
t og et he r w it h k no wl ed g c o s ci ou sn e
as th
th
a ct ua l
er h e p re se nt at io n
b ei ng -c on sc io us -o f- it ,
is c o
knowledg
ed
th
al
le
is no natural
th p re se nt s an
t hi s
Natural
is
is
r ea l k n w le dg e rhis is
ed
to
th
it
ea
er ta
is appearance th
enters into representation es
in
jv
only insofa
as beings
ov).
is
the en qu
en perceptu
th
cogiiaiiones that are as conscieniia.
in th
presentation ha
b e p re se nt e
th
o nt ol og y o f t h
in itself is
e se n appearin
r ea l c on sc io us ne s
whic
ap
ce
r ep re se nt at io n
a s r ea li ty .
t o p hi lo so ph y
P hi lo so ph y
t io n o f p he no me na l
e, k no wl ed g
w il l p ro v
le
al which is
co io th
ll
es
et ch
at
in
n at ur a
al
c on sc io us -
ed
tu
te
in
at
eg
in
at
at
is
is, o f r ea l k no wl ed g e.
as
l it y
m er el y
58
al
i ts el f
is em
e c is present
th
is
subjec
is p hi lo so ph i
c t is
ea
us
is
no
consciousnes
eg
th
c on ce pt . B u h e d oe s s a t ha t n at ur a
is something
c on sc io us ne s
w il l r o
t o b e " me re l t h
real knowledge. o f n ow l d g
on ep
kn wl dg
What is here called "merel ca
be de er in
un
thin everywhere as beings only if, unbeknowns to itself it
th Concep
n l w it h r ef er en c t o
beings Natura
representation of beings necessaril implie
this genera representation of th beingnes of beings with edge."
u t h ow e e r a n
s p c if i
no le ge of th
ei gn ss of
ens verum is th ens cerium that whic know itself with cert a n ty , t h
h ic h is
cettum is know
r es en t
k no wl e g e B u t h
it. It cannot avoi includin
trul only if it is known qu ens. Such is
t h c as e w he n t h esse o f t h en
beings natura consciousnes is no awar of Being, an ye
en
s en ta ti o
in it repre-
t h B ei n o f e in g i n g en e a l b e a u
is specifically represented
it ou to beings.
an th particular bein is know in it Being, th real in it
Unde this aspect natura consciousnes is merely the repre-
reality. Rea knowledge is that knowledg whic always an
sentatio
everywher
represent beings in thei beingnes
an represents phenomen
(reality),
in thei appearance This is why
of beingnes
" me r l y h e C on ce p
in
of
t ha t a c i e e s c er ta in t
n o l e g e, " n o
he kn wl dg
h e r ea li t o f t h r ea l
knowledg of th realit of th real is called rea knowledge e an in g
If
m ea n t ha t i t t u n s
ut to be th
n o l e g e w hi c e ve r
c c r di n
t o l og ic ,
rule of natura thinking
hi
d ef in e t h
fo ms nd
concep is th representation of
wher represents no beings qua beings bu in it represent-
somethin
in merely adhere to whatever is Whenever it seeksto find
such representation does no even specifically gras what it
beings in h ei r t r t h i t will always strive to explai beings
represents Bu it is characteristic of natura
in term of beings Th
beings in whic
consciousnes be
ot
nl
in g_eneral;"merel
on ta tl
th Concept" indicate that consciousnes
t o b e o m a b o r e d i n t h b ei n
ha
come absorbed ar thus fo consciousnes everything that
it represents bu alsoto regard them alon as true an thus
it is
to re ar
is
it kn wl dg
as re
k no wl e g e
c co rd in g y ,
natural. Sinc such representation become itself absorbed
Hege continues: "But sinc it (natural consciousness) im
in th
mediatel
e i g s o f w hi c i t
a wa r
an th
r em ai n i n t he i
environment, thi knowledge is naturalknowledge
Bu even
take itself
(that is t h
p at h a y
to
be real knowledge, this pathwa th
knowledg in it appearance 60
p re s n t t io n ha
61
ph no en
negative significance fo
it... nt
Whenever real knowledg places th Bein ofbeing th li el gh
e ca u
n at ur a
i t o w t ru t
k n w le d
t he re b
ubsume under thi statement
l oo k t h o th e w a
di pu ed
at ra kn wl
it isand remain mine an
thin that is throug
t hi n i nt o a n b je c f o
in th
at re of ec no og
ne
in so et in
b y h e s en se s
in
p i i o , " h e t ta ch e t o t h
word severa meanings th immediat focusing upon some thing, th trusting acceptance of what is given, an opinio
u b e ct .
v e s o a bs ol ut e m et a
physic is no th caus of this thin
is, as such as bein mine When Hege call this representa s b ei n
it irresistible transformation of every-
oe
ha is at ra in on ci us
o t l i in that whic ut in wh
tbat establishe itself
is sensible an
perceptibl
a ri se s d i e c l y in consciousness
n d a s s uc h d i e c l y e nt e
o ns ci ou s e s
Na ur
sensible be it th non-sensible of intellec an ou own. Such opinio is th basi constitution of al representin in whic natura consciousnes ha it habitat. Thus
Bu as soon as th appearance of phenomenal knowledg edge Natura
system of opinion."
logi or th
supra-sensible of the spiritual c o e s t o l i h t i t i s t hi s m er g n c t ha t
"persists within
co
sciousnes accepts in
o u t s f o k no wl -
consciousnes sees itself placed in
differen
What Hege call natura consciousnes does by no mean coincide with sensible consciousness. Natura a li v
l l s ha p
way-includin
t h S pi ri t l iv e
ll
knowledg is
th
i n t s o wn '
such In that light, natura knowledg lose its truth, becaus t ha t t ru t
o w p r v e t o b e h a w hi c i s o t y et -t r e ; f o
especially th shap of absolute knowledg
that come abou as absolute metaphysics, an that isvisible
realit of th phenomena. Th
only occasionally to
ance realizes what wa "merel th Concep of knowledge.
fe
thinkers This metaphysic is so
It br ng th twentieth-centur
positivism that on th contrary mode
n at ur a
c on s i o s n s s w hi c
in
ee in
wi
o pi ni on s
accomplishes the unlimited self-assurin feasibility of eve.ry mean "havin an Heidegger's word Meinen, whic colloquiall opinion," is relate to mein (mine) an suggest "makin somethin my own, an to Ol High German minne (love) (Tr.)
e a f or t i n t s r ea li ty , a n
within th real Th phenomen no ar th
s ep a a t
s er ve d w it hi n r e t he i
presentation of th appear
f ro m r e
k n w le d
wn th ir ea it
n t r o e s r e l it y
ar no thereb eliminated no le ge h er e h e
n d t he i t r t h
he ar
re
h av e o m i n at ra
co sc ou
nessand real knowledg ar indeed th Same in that natura consciousnes as what is not-yet-true an real knowledg as
nomena! knowledge, w hi c
reason th tw ar no identical.
i s in t r t h
knowledg fo whic that is mos rea nl
th
u n e al iz e
o nc e t .
lo
this road natura consciousnes lose definitively what unti presentation of phenomena] knowledg in it appearance is
then wa it truth, bu neve lose itself thereby. Rather it
a n i nc es sa n c ha ll en g
establishe itself in th ne
t o w ha t
at ra
c o s ci ou sn e
re
ro stoo as doubt. However, as th COUISef Descartes'
ed
is of anothe
tations
r ue , i t u t i n q ue st io n
an
nd va io
od
kind
o f r ep r
dg
trut
accordin
to its ol way.
h e i e p oi n o f t h s ci e c e o f p h n o e na l th
oa
n ow l
conscious-
t h p r s e t at io n i s f o n a u r
ness th road of despair, though natura consciousnes does no know it Bu natura consciousnes itself neve despairs Doub that lead into despai isthe business of th presenta tion that is of absolute knowledge. Bu even th presenta
doubting-doubtin
whic itselfisin no wa bein doubted. natura
c hi ev e
it
w n s e u r t y~ a
the fundamentum
absolutum
se ur ty Bu th
hi
is considered
absoluteness of this
consciousness, becaus
this consciousnes
w an t t o e a i z w ha t i t o n t a t l i s- t n o l ed g - a
y e n ev e c ea s
t o a rr o a t
no questioned no is its
trut
essenc even mentioned. Hegel'
wa
of knowledge. Th more completely th presentation follow
in that
he know that ther ca be absolute knowledg only if t , i n whatever manner begins with absoluteness Thus it is no unti Hegel' though that natura consciousnes appear it ow proper setting-whil n t t h l an d
m od e
in
Descartes, though he sets foot
p hi l s o h y thesubiectum
ego cogiio, actually does no se th landscap
as th
Th absolute presentation of phenomenal knowledg does r ut h T h
r oa d
t h p r s e t at io n o f h e o me n
appearance is "the consciou insigh into th untrut
bein th sole standard
o f d e p a r , h e s o n e s ci e c e c om pl et e i t o w
appearance. Th
presentation of phenomenal knowledg submerge
o ta ll y i nt o t h s t t e
d es p i r I t i s t h c o s u
d es p i r
e g l , " th or o g hg oi n
i s s ay s
a ti o
s ke p i ci sm ,
skepticism in it consummation We thus recove th origi-
at all.
n o a l o w n at u a l c on s i o s n s s v e t o r et u
he oa
to preten
to it el th
Absolute is bein neithe doubte
is differen
of knowledg an
neve
e r c o c ep t o f
ts wn he of phe-
n a m ea n n g o f t h w or d s k p s s " a t h in g s cr ut i i zi ng , b ei n s . S ke ps i
th
se
CTKbJIL,>
ha an
s en s p ur s e s t h
w it h i t g az e I t w at c i n
means seeing
o w b ei ng s r e
a s a u h t s ig h
e in g
b ei n s o e th i
fo itself,
knowledg that it s cr ut in iz e
perspectiv ca
it
au
h in ke r
a r i nn at el y s ke p
is
in
ir
em t,
an
these
en
th
i;
earance
in
Skepsis is e w itself,
th is
im
skepsis is that oidi (I
it
al
ci
in
ar
es
al
th
education" ea
co
it
e se n i o
ay
in
en n om en a t he m e lv es , t ak in g t he ms el ve s f o w ha t i s r ea l
this a pp ro ac h is th
hi
as
s i u lt an eo u
c om in g a n
ov
ac
ce
i t e lf , w hi c ap ea
e.
ci
es
ce
en
in th
od
er
o f s el f- pr od uc in g
ay
ap lo
ce
te er
e. tt tu
in th
--ci
ci
an eg
is
s ke pt ic is m
. . H eg el ' t er m i s i l u ng -t h formed or shaped (Tr. 66
it-
ci s ke pt ic is m ap
to c on sc io u n es s
ie
it
it
d ev el op s i nt o k e t ic i m , a n
lr
self.
it co
ci
g oi n
l f is.
ic
ch
r oc es s by
whic
somethin
is
h or i o n o f s om e i mi te d e v d e c e
lo ki
u t t ow ar d
th appearance of phenomenal knowledge, it look over th whol expans of phenomenal knowledge. Th isolated ego cogito with it representation li it
f r m ew or k
th ou
or
r em ai n
h o o ug h
er ap
certum
Bu
remain captiv within this
ve
t hi s f ra me wo r - t o u h t
th
nl as th
H eg e
o ul d o ns id e i t
no ye se foot into th land of philosophy-self-consciouses -w er
th
ep es nt
o bj e
f ir s e xi st s
t a d s " Be i g "
th
au
tr ly
h a w hi c
actualitas or realit
a r o we r s e s e o f m er e
t h ego cogito i n t h f or m
consists in th knowledg of self-know-
t s e nl ar ge me n t o "is" all reality, the
is preceded by skepsi into th larg spac that
subjectnes appear to itself
he
In on ra
complete retrea into that trut of beings which, as absolute
ot
certainty, consider itself to be Bein itself
an clarificatio
of terminolog
whic
become necessary. Once Hege ha
This object is what is represente
hi
fo what become
object of consciousnes in immediat
representation
onesidedly only as bein
ob-jected, se against, withou regard fo th representing w hi c
e i g s i n t hi s s en s ye tr
an
r ea l
ut th
bs lu
ep es nt
de ig at e ge l m pl o
" Be i g , a s t h t er m f o h a i n a ct u "B in
realit tha is in hi sens stil untrue an
or
wi
ha
H eg e ' s u sa g e g l , o ll ow in g
an
se he te
" Be i g "
ca ls th
o bj e t iv e
objectivity, an also fo what he represents as th trul
ha meanwhil
firmly establishe
terminology, he uses th term "beings"
ct an fo th
w a s u p o e d t o a v v an i h e
knowledg of scienc take no notice thereof.
But this preceding is
th
eho
e mo r o f t h esse o f t h en
open up when unconditione
pone
ei g,
the en actu t h r e l ,
th realit of absolute knowledge. True this enlargement requires an
uc
thinks of th real only as that whic is Hege always under-
tr th is ot
E i v C t t , bein
as th Greeks understood it, from Hegel' poin
of view as th objectivity' of an immediatel s ub j c t v it y h a h a
interpre it on th basi of this subjectivity bu on th basi th
r ee k ' A . X 7 j 8 E L C t ,
nco
cealedness,
representation of consciousnes as skepsi is oww"
to de ig at th interprets classi
representing
o t e t f ou n i ts el f w e d o n o t ha t i s
m od e
b ei n
r ri ve s f r
concealed are where nature is as ye unthought. Th beingness of beings whic from th beginnings of Gree though
It
Vas Seie'lde
N ie tz sc he ' d o t ri n
(Tr.)
68
of Et rn 69
R ec u r e c e
oo
pl ce
wa does th presentation thereb cisive-mod
of Bein whic need no byany mean appear
o nl y a s t h p re s n c
h a i s p re s n t
iv
eg l'
achiev it ow appear
ance so that it ceasesto be a-mere entrance Th presenta
se
it
is certai
of containing
within itself th whol histor of th formatio entitled to designat what fo hi term
nd ye
is t h
ru re li
he
still containin the wor "being."
d oe s s o v e y wh er e s i c e h e e s e nc e o f
ness trut
of conscious-
proces in whic natura consciousnes ca find th ofall it Shapes
p ir i
remains "being self-conscious.":" This usage, to be sure is e rm i o lo gy ,
ut
es
u po n t h
o nc e l e
wa
in
hi
Hegel:
Being itself reveal and conceals itself.
complete system of th Iorm of unreal conscious-
ness will presen itself throug "Being to th appearance of phenomenal knowledge, an g ai n t o t h a b o lu t n es s
he
so ut
at firs seem arbitrary. However,
ou
sa
ma
neithe arbitrar
no
case of mere terminology, assuming it ispermissible at al
g r s si o a n th
co
r e e ns i l e
p r l i i na r
th necessit of th pro-
i nt e r e a t d ne s
h e f or ms .
ay
ay th
ot d, in
t h p r s en t t i
sciousness in it untrut
isnot
ke e ne r
an
o f n tr u
on
merely negative move-
ment as natura consciousnes onesidedly view it An terminolog
is by its nature an instrument of th sciences
h e a n u ag e o f h i k in g i t i t d es ti ny , r at he r o f t h n ki n
in
th
ic
as ro
u mm on s t ho ug h
l a i t o f its w n t h n ki n
in keeping
n ot h
ki
in or er to
se that othe thinking free into it ow nature ha cede an
h ap pe n
en th
look forwar
s ke ps i
c on s i ou s e s
re
into th appearance of phenome-
na knowledge, an brings abou it presentation er an r d C o c on sc i "being-ccnscious. (Tr.)
s ne s
i. Beurusstsein,
In what literally
de
k no wl ed g
hi
its basic principle is o n
a ke s t h th
o ne si d d ne s
S ha pe s
nc
pl te
consciousnes which, as such belong to th system of th se
h ap e
of th
r oa d i ts el f I t s , n am el y
nd
il
e co m
sees in ever result only pur
ni es
h e c ou rs e
h e s ke p i c s m
nothingness
hi
and abstracts
from th fact that this nothingnes is determinate, that it is the nothingness
th
ic
it
In
fact it is only when nothingnes is take as th nothingn es s o f
ha
c om e f r
ha
he tr
r es ul t f o
then nothingnes itself is content. abstractio
determinate nothingness and
he sk pt ci
hi
nd
it
he
p re s n t t i principl
p h n om en a
k no wl e g e T h
vi
one-sided; fo natura representation always look
of nothingness, or with emptiness, cannot bu fo th
ho e- he
object Natura
si
i t d ir e
n co u t e
it
he
consciousnes neve look to th othe side
toward th Bein of beings This essentia one-sidedness of t h c on t a r
h e e s l t i s o mp re h n d
as it ru
is
as determinate mediatel
in t h n eg a i o
th tr ns ti
th pr gr ss on hr ug
th
is
o mp le t
sequence of Shapes take plac of it ow accord
KE SE
f or tn at i n .
s ho w i ts el f a s t ha t s k p t c is m w hi c
n o i n a n c o d uc t n d u p w it h t h c o c l s i This skepticism i.e. sophistry, an
N TH S E T I N de ve l p s t h
pl te sy te
specific Shap of
of th
or
of
i nq u r y i nt o t h
n re a
o ns ci ou sn e s .
shee addictio
to doubt, is absolute
How, in this Shap of consciousness, is the one-sidedness o f n at ur a k no wl e g e r a s e t o h e s ta t a y t ha t
at ra
of
ci le In th
everywhere find only beings only phenomena, an everything it meet accordin
is
emergenc of th Shapes ca result only from th course of m us t be
is no of he in
he
w hi c
judges
f al l
i c i m t o t h u ka s
necessar progression, fo only then ca
th pr se ta io
In
na ur
o ns c o u n e
is
h y t h a pp ea r n c
of thes things isBeing This
h a a pp e r s t h r ea li t
ha
h a d oe s h e a t r e
of th progressio consist? ie
lw ys nd
of appear
gaps What is it that constitute th necessit of progressio ou se
r in -
to thes findings Whatever
in in
which finds only beings-one in th
c on s i o s ne s
no
knowledg ha no ye appeared to itself in it appearance
a nc e
th
always result in empt nothingness.
Thes ar th Shapes of phenomenal knowledge, sinc this
this emergence. That course is th progressio
in ll
th
knowledg supposedly attained always amount to nothing.
Heidegger:
"c
consciousnes ma even ente as
consciousness. It must displa itself within th histor of it
arisen an
m ad e b y w hi c
natura
natura consciousness. In th judgment of natura consciousi n g en e a l t a e s
th
n ow l d g
il ea
t o n ot hi ng . I n a ct , h a p r s e t a i o
ne er ge
be on
it
i rs t s te p
n ot hi ng . H ow , n d w hi c from there? An
hi
ha
l re ad y l e
ay isthe pr se ta io
progressio
to
to go
remain denied to it-unles
it constantly allowssome othe Shap ofphenomenal knowlsupposed appearance with whic
enough in th
allegedl philo-
sophical objections that ar raised agains Hegel' philosophy. In anticipation of such objections Hege himsel says in th presen sectio merely that th nothingnes to whic
n o l ed g
l ea d i s n o
m pt y b u
Therefore, if th
t h n ot hi ng ne s o f t h
f ro m
result whic
th progressin
presentation
t he n i t is no surprising that th course of th presentation to ee
s tr an g
t o n at ur a
c o s c o u n e s . It is
a l t h m or e n e e s a r f ro m h e o ut se t t o p re v n t t hi s
one-side progressio
view whic
natura
consciousnes take of th
of th presentation from throwing everything
confusion
h a n ee d t o g o u t e y n d n d w he r t h
bj ct an
he bj ct
o nc e
c or -
h e C on ce pt .
itself powerles to transcen
it immediat
existence, it
is. r oo t
i s i t death. Bu sinc consciousnes is fo itself Concept, i t m me di at el y
ra sc nd
w ha t i s
h ic h
yields fo th presentation stem from wher th progressio
c on ti nu e
l on g
Th progressio toward this goal is consequently with
presentation of phenomenal knowledg is supposed to
it results. However, appearance result from what appears.
int
w he r
presentation of phenomenal knowledg
also find expression ofte
th
sarily as th sequence of th progression. It istha poin
r es p n d t o t h
Th view that natura consciousnes must cheris when
th
8. Fo knowledge, however, th goal is fixe just as neces-
i t e lf , w he r i t f i d s i ts e
it
nothingness. ever it judges th
Hegel:
individual th beyond is also establishe fo consciouse ss , e ve n spatia
he it is on
n ex t t o what is
intuition. Consciousnes therefor
suffer vio-
destroys for itself any limite satisfaction U nd e
th
w el l r et re a
i nf lu en c ro
o f t hi s
i o e n e , a n i et y
th tr th an tr to on er
in an er of ei
os Bu
an fi
ay
ha is
n o r e t . h ou l
it wish to remain in thoughtles indolence, though will
troubl
th thoughtlessnes an
it restlessness will disit
sentimentality whic
claims to find everything
it kind
th
an
ic
in
ti
ci
at
it is
th
te ev
in
le
itself made et es
in
ay
li tu
f es ta ti on , a n
im ie
tw
t o t se l in its appearance
ap
t hu s o rg an iz e
ty
toit el an
th
ea
ty
ly
i ts el f a s t h
itself is neither
Consciousnes
to
er ta
es
eh
it so difficult, if not Impossible, t ha n
is
en io
lu io
io
itself of its
sciousness inform
r ea l
o f i t S ha pe s
merely natura
consciousness
is
al co ci
th
er
co li
th
an
h ow ev er , l i in consciousnes
like lifeless items. Conscious-
e m in b ar re n
" I, " is
f o i t f le e t h
s at is fa ct io n
w hi c
u ni ve r a l a n
mu
be left to itself
is ed
it
in io
ex
s ee k o nl y b ei ng -f o - it se lf .
Heidegger: THE
EIGHTH
SECTIO
d es cr ib e
th
c ha ra ct er i t i
mo en
in t hi s r es tl e s ne s
t io n o f c on sc io u n e
c o e s t o p as s
h e p ro gr es si o
t hr ou g
ti
o f c on sc io us ne s
t o it. C on sc io us ne s
i s n ei th e
n o e ve n g ui de d in i t d ir ec ti o it ow
a cc or d
"Of
w hi c
it
i nd ee d g iv e d ir ec -
pu in
o ti o
b y h i t or y
by it
at
at
io
in itself p ro gr es si on . C on sc io us ne ss , t he re fo re , m u view. Accordingly,
this
no
co
i nt o
er c on sc io us ne s no
it
ch as
i n r ep re se nt in g
explicitly includes in
b ei ng s
u na vo id ab l
ta io 77
th
al t ho ug h
in
ei
tu
on ci is n o
ts o ut si d
as tr
i t e lf .
a tu ra l
en c on sc io us ne s
is set
it is en
ci
ig b ei ng s i n
h ic h n at ur a
c on sc io u n e
et
ti
in
he
al
ef
ts as
is
th
ip io
io
a bi de s is determined, e ve r t h
goal is
is
k no wl ed g
o f t h b ei ng ne s
ness refuse
to face th
o f b ei ng s B u n at ur a
restless tensio
c on sc io us -
of self-transcendence ing.
II
it. in th
h is to r
o f c on sc io us ne ss '
is
f or ma ti o
it
on ta ly a n i rr e i st ib l
ay
tl
te
p ul l i nt o s el f- tr an sc en de nc e
th
e su l
h e p re se nt at io n
which is COD-
ci
ta
to
le tu
ca tension
ts
ll ta
ti te
e-
is
is ea it
th
in
ar
e a is
is
al ad o ve me n is
i ss ui n eh
Cram
ut
knowledge ep
ts
co
is
as pl te
ll he
bl
ap
ay
ll
le 79
io th
in
e se n t i pp
an
is
a n o bj ec t o f k no wl ed g i s o t y e g r s pe d c on ce pt ua l k ep si s t ha t p r v ai l i n t h
n at u
o f o ns ci ou s e ss .
as
he
skepsi sustains from th outset th irresistible pull by whic consciousnes is violentl carrie
beyond itself-b
which,
corresponds to it, n d m u
in th
e la ti o
that is,
with that knowledg itself Only in t hi s
uprooting natura consciousnes loses wha it t a e s t o b e i t
know
consciousness. In this constant dyin
wh ch is
totall within knowledge, whic ha thus become
genera representing (conceiving) in natura
b e e pr es en t
ay isth
comprehensiv
an
consciousnes
sacrifices itself so that it ma by th sacrific gain it resur-
concep in which consciousnes conceivesitself, natura con
r ec ti o i nt o i t o w
sciousness always remain "merel
sciousness is bein
a tu r
restless tensio il
u p o ot i g , n at ur a c on -
violated Bu th violatio
consciousnes itself Th is th
In th
violence is th w hi c
i t a bs ol ut e e s
a nt s
in t h m od e o f
natura consciousnes always live in th mids of beings
known. Onl becaus consciousnes is fo itself it ow concept ca
natura
. .. .
sciousnessis fo itself it ow
Thi statement
else than does th referenc at th beginnin
of th sixt section: "Natural consciousnes will show itself e.
consciousness, as part of consciousnes it
self, persist, in t s p o i ti o o f b ei n
e re l t h C on ce p o f
knowledge. However, we shal adequately understand th firs statemen abou consciousnes only when we no only pa attentio
statemen abou consciousnes will be plausible: "But consays somethin
Fo inas
come from
prevalence of th
within consciousnes itself That prevalence t h A b o lu t
th Concept.
to th distinctio
Hege emphasizes betwee
«Concept" an "merel th Concept, bu alsogivethought t o w ha t w e o ns id er e
in
sentence "But consciousnes is fo itself it ow h e r ea ] s t e s l ie s o n t h
i s. "
i ts el f t ha t a cc om pl i h e i t
Concept,"
m e n s i t i s o ns ci ou s e s
p pe ar an c
t o i ts e
nd at th
speaking no of natura consciousness, bu of consciousnes
s am e t im e c on st it ut e
t h s ta g f o t h a pp ea ra n e , s in c
i ts el f w it h u t q ua li f c at i n s N o
th
or
C on ce pt " i s
this stag is part of it nature Thus consciousnes find it-
o ns ci ou s e s t o i ts e i n i t t ru th .
he
a tu r
o f t ha t t r t h
self in it Concept. lies in n co nd it i n a
e rt ai nt y
I n t e m s o f this certainty,
-'
i nc e H e e l' s f ir s
t at e e n
a bo u
r ou gh t t h t r t h o f c o s ci o s ne s i n 81
c on sc io us n s s v ie w h e i s n o
as in
position also to clarif natura consciousnes with regard to
ow thoughtlessnes in whic it dissolve everything At th en of th same sectio which, with it firs statemen abou
c o s ci ou sn e s . B u t hi s d oe s n o
a l m ea n t h
n at ur a
consciousness is f al se , d ec ep ti v
consciousness, look ahea
into th trut
of knowledge, th
is
an
e rr o
a th e
it
means: natura
consciousness is always not-yet-true consciousness, over p ow e e d b y t h
v io le nc e t h
i nt o i t t ru th .
a tu r
f or c w hi c
a rr i
it fo th
c on sc io us ne s f ee l t hi s o rc e a n
'I
whic find it sole satisfaction in limiting itself to th
beings it encounters. Th
"barre
h an de d
e ha vi o
"barren
'I'''
'I'''
o f o m o n o pi n o n in philosophy. Still,
begins to fear fo it ow survival Hegel, whos rationalis cannot be praise passage-wher e dg e
th
or blamed enough speaks in th decisive he mentions th relation of natura knowl-
e in g
b ei ng s- o
t h " fe el in g o f i ol e c e. "
This feelin of th violence of th willas whic th Absolute is, characterize the manner in which natura
'I'''
,"
consciousnes
."
is
e ye s t o t h p r s en t t io n whic
prompt consciousnes to evad th Bein of beings
is ipso facto, qu
n at ur a r el at io n t o B ei ng . a ls o h e w a through
p he no me na l k no wl ed g a n
refuse to follow th progressio of th presentation Hence, t h d og m t is m o f c ur re n o pi n o n m u
which, philosophy
t o r ef e b a
e r i m e di at el y
th me cy of
bein
e r f ee l n g i ns t a d o f is
coul it, sinc scienc is
is it.
f ee li ng . p hi lo s p h
grounded in science. This superficia view whic
l ef t t o i t o w
devices. Philosophy, in making this decision does no reject natura consciousness. Indeed ho
t ho u h t i s c om pe ll e
to
though in it truth. Only philosophy discover natura cons c o us ne s i n i t n at ur al n s s a n
r ec og ni ze s i t H o e ve r
professe toda as widely as ever isitsel part of that vanity
philosophy does pass natura consciousnes by when natura
o f h e u nd er st a d in g w hi c
consciousnes puff itself up as philosophy in orde to eras
H eg el ' o w ol
e li g t s i n t h i n o le nc e o f i t
p hr as e t ra ns la te d by M r D ov e " Un de r t h i nf lu en c Be de Geluhl ditSlr Gewall." (Tr.)
th borderline that separate it from philosophy an to turn t s b ac k u po n p hi l s op h a s t h k no wl ed g o f h e B ei n o f
beings Bu philosophy then bypasses only what ha alread th while philosophy in bypassing it, nonetheless concerns itself with natura
consciousness, an
th course in whic th trut
e re l
sentatio
itself it work itself
presentation produces itself as such in
does no go from natura to real consciousness= as this distinctio in ever
obscure. If
r ea d w it h u s h o
c ou l a b o lu t k no wl ed g b e
th
betwee
th
form of consciousness,
n l o f t ha t p a
h ic h t h A bs ol u
is
phenomena knowledge is this path this course Th nature of th presentation ha become even more enigmatic. Only this remain clear: th presentation does not, in separation f ro m t h A b o lu t
c om e r o
c o r s w ho s
i n h e w a i n w hi c
o rc e o f t h w i o f t h A bs ol ut e
he
r es en ta ti o
f ol -
i t e l t ra ve l i n
it
f r n t t h A bs ol u
o ti o i s e te r i ne d b y t h g oa l h a i s b y
p at h t o
still
the Absolute? If
p r c ee d f ro m o n S ha p t o t h n e t . T hi s p r g re ss io n i s th
ay th tw
difference-remai
n te r n g o n h e s ce ne . T h w a o f t h p re -
consciousnes itself whic
ha
in-
Th presentation of phenomenal knowledg is skepticism out in detail Th
t h q ue st io n w h t he r a n i n
only with it in of consciousnes appears.
in it consummation In accomplishin s te a o f
presentation belong together with what is
s e t ed , a n
o me wh er e o r o th e t o c on n a u ra l
o ns ci ou s
nes conceives of knowledge
lows th appearance of phenomenal knowledg that come it wa is
T h n a u ra l n ot i
m ea ns -h a
a pp li e
no
a bs ol u
v a i sh e
No
t o a n o bj ec t F ur th er mo re ,
k no wl ed ge -t ha t
it
a n k n w le dg e o w
Hegel:
i nc e t h p r s en t t io n r em ar k
s up e f lu o
n y c as e T h s , a f e r t hi s c la r f ic at io n t h
presentation coul begi immediately. Bu it does no begin, a s u mi n i t h a n o b eg u
a lr ea dy .
e w p ar ag r p h
of re
c on ce rn i
th
a nn e
n d n ec es si t o f t h
progression, it method o f c a r yi n Fo if this presentation is viewed as
ou th
i nq u r y
descriptio of th
way science is related to phenomenal knowledge and p re s n ta t o n o f p he no me na l k n w le dg e h a n o y e b ee n
investigation an r ea l
o f k no w e dg e
critical examination into the
even to take plac withou some presupposition whic
e ri v
t s l ai m f ro m t h d e a il s o f h e
r es e t at io n
still,
will serv as th fundamenta standard of measurement. F o a n e xa m n at io n c o s is t i n a pp l i n standard an
in d ec i i ng ,
whethe what
tested is correc or incorrect. Thus th standard is ac~
c ep t
a s t h e ss en c
thein-itself.
scienc will make it firs appearance
Bu here wher neithe scienc
an
a nd , t h s ta n a r
an re ul
t se lf , s su m n g t ha t a b o lu t
n l f ro m t h
e rf o m an c
k n w le dg e c a n o
p ic k u p
it standard just anywhere If the presentation is to measur n tr u
k no wl ed g b y i t t r t h i t m us t r e o nc i
reconcilable Th
wh
impossible blocks it way. Ho
ca
i s irthis
cannot take place.
Hegel:
Heidegger: NINT
th on ha d,
i th ou t s om e s uc h b as i p ri n i pl e i t
seem that an examinatio
THE
s ta n a rd .
obstacle be removed?
no anything else ha justifie itself as th essence the in-itself;
x am in at io n a s a n a cc r d it e
th ba is of fi al ag ee
ment or disagreement with th standard is bein
a n a cc ep te d
SECTIO
h i n a u ra l c on c p ti o
nonetheles take up agai o f n ow le dg e a l h ou g
o nl y i n o rd e t o r ai s o nc e m or e t h q ue s i o
precisel i t d oe s
c o c er ni n
10
h i c on tr ad ic ti o
n d i t r em ov a w il l p re se n t h m -
selves more distinctly if d et er mi n t io n
o f k no wl ed g
an
t ru t
ar
c al le d t o
mind as they exis in consciousness. Consciousnes disknowledge is
is s o f a f r
n va li da ti n
th
tinguishes from itselfsomethin
to whic it a t t h s a
time relates i t e lf ; o r a s t hi s is expressed: this some is in question When
th presentation brings phenomenal knowledg
fort
its appearance
is no ye
it places th consciousnes whic
thin
is somethin
fo
c o n sc io u sn e s . . The determinate being of some
into thing f o r
c o n sc io u sn e ss , is knowledge. From this bein
true into it truth, It measures what appear by it appear
fo an other, however, we distinguis th being~in·itself;
ance Appearance isthe standard Wher does th presenta
t ha t w hi c
tion ge that standard
distinguishe
Science, in undertaking the exami-
nation of phenomenal knowledge, itselfacts as th authorit
i s e la te d t o n ow l d g i s a t t h s a Iro
it and is posite
t hi s r el at io ns hi p o o T h
si
ti
as existing outside
o f t hi s i n- s l f [ ex i t in g
outsid th relationship is truth. Exactl what migh be 86
in
ed
th
rn
et
e. In
ch
j ec t ar
a ti o en
ou
ta en
ne
th
he
no
er
en
ed
e te r i n i o
e d t el y
is
e se n
ec
te
em el
at ns as o wl e
ey
is
tr
co
ey ar
calls them
ou ne al ed
b st r c t
et
a-
taken. constitution
of consciousness.
is understood
Consciousnes
Heidegger: o ne si de dl y- t
SECTION
n at ur a
r ep re se nt at io n
io
ei
io
hi
th
is known e an s o f l og ic a
a rg u e nt s . . T h
s ee mi ng l
i rr ec on ci la bl e
e xi st s i n k no wl ed ge ,a n
It lies in the
th
ch co
e xi st s a s k no wl ed ge .
ha
i s k n ow n
e l t e in
io ne
is a te d
th
n sc i
es
of
e se n a t o n
at
en at n.
el
at al en ti
that it
im
is
this mode somethin
Is consciousness, n sc i
es
Is
a ct iv it y
it lf io
H er e
th as
c on sc io us ne s
li
ea nh
nt
qua
ai
i t is
is in itself hence, somethin
ta an
i t e l c o e s m or e c le ar l
in
is o n
tr
o f t hi s r ef le ct io n
in
et in
ep
en d)
in i ts el f
u nd e c io us ne ss , k no wl ed g
th
ic
But in
ness. If
ard?
io
in
an
it lf
t ru th , a r eg 89
d is ti ng ui sh e el
ir ts
an " fo r
a s " be in g OUf
atten-
c ei ve s i t s ta nd ar d
an it
h ar ac te r
b ei n
in which it m ov es . T h
terminations." Yet, unbeknow
to us although on purpose,
c le ar e a s s oo n
H eg e h a h er e
a si c p r p er t
examination, see fro
o in t
ou
o f c on sc i u s
ness Th openin sentence of this sectio even name it in
x am in a
p r s pe c g ro w
i t b ec om e e v d en t w ha t t h
e as ur in g
the viewpoint of consciousnes itself
is aiming at
passing. is different fro
an
distinguishe
consciousnes
by it As itself an by virtue of itself it is
th relation of somethin
to somethin else However, that
which is distinguished in this distinctio
(th object fo th
Hegel:
1 1 W he n w e i nv es ti ga t t h t ru t
subject in
ha we ar
tinguishes precisel by virtue of th distinction. In repre-
Bu sinc knowledg is ou
senting, consciousnes separate
it is o r u s Therefor
s uc h
a y t ha t i t r el at e i t
somethin
from itself in
sciousness is ambiguou in it nature That ambiguit
such
an
t ru th , " b i n
f or " a n
everywhere immediatel
presentation which, as representation It investigates knowledg n ow le dg e o r i t
r ut h
distinguishing activity of th distinctio
o nl y o u k no wl ed g o f i t T h it
regardin
hi
t an da r
of
e ss e c e o r h e s t n da r
a n d e i de d p o
c o p ar i o n w ou l
remain itself
mode of consciousness? It represents phenomen I t e xa mi ne s
in-itself
h a w e w ou l
or
" be in g i n- it -
wa that they themselves ar ambiguous.
appearance
th in-itself of th object resultin
knowledg bu rather it bein
in consciousness, in
,. is th
k no wl ed g i s i n i ts el f
object in this investigation,
is the
nature of representation Becaus of it th tw determinat io ns -k n w le dg e
wh
t se lf . C on sc io u n es s i n i ts el f
make distinctions that ar no distinctions In thissense, con-
self"-occu
n ve s i ga ti n
k no wl ed ge , i t s e m s
in thei it truth.
It move within th
as whic conscious-
as
e su l o f h i
o t n ec es sa r l y h av e
e co gn iz e
that standard Heidegger:
THE
ELEVENTH
SECTIO
s k d ir ec tl y
presentation of phenomenal
knowledg
h a i t is is investigating.
However, this question is pose directly only when it asks,
nes itself is open on th essentia possibilit that th presentation re
does th investigating. Fo if that whic is to be investigated
is somethin
that is known, then it is within ou knowledg
fo us wh ar investigating. With th characterization ofthe s ci en ce ,
h ic h p r s en t p he no me na l k no wl ed g
in it ap
pearance we suddenly become ourselve involved in th pres en ta ti o
t ur n
u t h a w e a r i n o lv e
w ha t h e r es e t at i
l re a y , i nc e
p re se nt s i s " fo r u s. " T h
t he r is no is to play
i n s ci en ce . h a q ue st io n l ea d i n no
f o i t t ru t fo
w e i nv es ti ga t T ru t
he
xa in
i s b ei ng -i n- it s l f
n ow le dg e
n o l ed g
consciousness. When we investigat th trut
ed e,
i s b ei n of knowl-
t r t o f in d o u w ha t k no wl ed g i n i ts el f i s B u o u
investigatio woul make knowledg ou object If we were to plac knowledg before us in its being-in-itself, it would trut
of knowledge, bu only ou knowledg of knowledge.
Being-for-us woul remain th standard by whic we mean o l ed g s ub mi t t o is t o
s ta nd ar d w hi c
i nv er t t h
m e s ur ed , a n m a e s i t i nt o t h
th
r es en ta ti o
fr
t h c on si de r t io n o f h e t w
p h n om en a
s ci ou sn es s k no wl ed g woul posite.
an
invert it ow performanc
[between what is in-itself c om e t og et h
w it h t h
n d w ha t is
d is ti nc ti o us
is over
a t e nd an t p r s up po si t o n b y
Sinc consciousnes provides itself with it ow stand-
ha
other; in othe words, consciousnes in genera ha th determinatio
of th moment of knowledg in it. At th
same time this othe is to consciousnes no only some thing for it; it is also somethin outsid this relationship or in itself consciousnes within it ow self designates as th itself
in-
true,
sciousnes itself proposes to measur its knowledge If we call knowledge
the Concept, an call th essenc
true
h ic h
t o f ol lo w
d et er mi n t io n t he n
made fall in it. In consciousness, on moment is
e as ur e i ts el f If
k no wl ed g
r ut h
1 2 B u t hi s d is t n ct i n , o r t hi s s em bl an c o f
i me ns io n w h c h
hardly suspect. What is
Hegel:
c on -
h e p re s n ta t o n
continuall
into its op-
essence or th
in-itsel
the Concept,
and
object the
if,
object as object, i.e. as it is aminatio
th r,
will consis in ou lookin to se whethe th
object correspond to it Concept. It is no difficul to se
h a t he s
tw
r es en ta ti on s c oi nc id e i t i s h o 93
e ve r e ss en ti a
moments,
t o h ol d f as t t o t h
C o nc ep t
being-in-its-sell,
an
al
f ol lo wi n
f ac t t hr ou gh -
o b e ct , b e n g f or ·a no th e th
at
ge
ou
is measured,
and
co
us es
j ec t
tt
preconceived
ep at
el
ECTI
ex ic te
d if fi cu lt y
t at i
p re se nt at io n
p re se nt s
th
ts
h e r el ea s is brough
th
co
es
ib
n at ur e
o f c on sc io us ne s
el
a su r
nd
ts ow
a bo u
ig
c on sc io u n es s
ti
Concept."
Th
ad
f ir s s ta te me nt ,
on ci
It is
abou ta
th
in
t at e e n
ad
e me rg e
is t h
to th
es
s ec on d
TWEL TH
t hi s n ew l
it
a s it is in and f o r i ts e lf .
Heidegger: THE
es en al
hi
at in
ow
If
rd
en en
isco
ic
it
in
ut
T ha t o bj ec t i s c on sc io u n es s i ts el f
with ard? If it
en
on ci
lf
ff
it i s d is ti ng ui sh e
th
in it
t ea d
ay
t an da r
f o it.
io
as ts ta ar
ta ar
isno
nt
in
lf
ce
is sciousness from outsid representation
whil
th
representation
implie
in consciousness, becaus
consciousnes
is
c on ta in s t h possibility t ha t c on -
94
i s p ro vi de d
w it h
is COD-
s ci ou sn es s T ha t d ic ho to m
it. C on sc io u n e
is
95
isthe dichotoe as ur ed .
Bu
consciousness provides its standard in itself Bu what is
representation that whic
consciousnes in itself Consciousnes is in itself when it is
o nl y " fo r a n o th e . .
by itself an it is by itself when it is specificallyfor itself and
consciousnes represents fo it consciousnes ha give "far
is represented, bu no Io Itself
o we ve r t o e th e w i
itself, If consciousness were to give its stand-
ard in itself it woul mean strictly speaking gives to itself th standard fo itself Bu as ness is precisel no concerne th athe hand trut
.th
with what it is
applied. By presenting phenomenal knowledg as such we t ak e a p e ar a c e a s h e t an d r d b y
w n c on ce p f o
h ic h
m ea su r t h
knowledg that regard as true what appears. In phenomena knowledge, that whic
it knows is
h a i s t r e . If we
itself. This is wh it "provide itself with it ow standard."
call this trut
T hi s i s w h
it then th critical presentation of th phenomen
o ns c o us n s s t se l
disposal of consciousness. Th
l ac e t h
t an d r d a t t h
word "itsel with it own"
of th ir
th object an call concep th knowledg of
p pe a a nc e c on si st s i n n ve st ig at in g
have this twofol meaning: consciousnes carrie th stand-
knowledge-that
a r w i h i i t o w n a u re .
its kncwledge=-corresponds to that whic
sciousness, and applicable. to. is na somethin
u t w ha t t hu s it
an
n o to. something else,
It give an ye does
versely, if
is what natura th
knowledg
th
consciousnes regard as unde
is true Or coninvestigatio
th
consciousnes represents beings as
representing conseiousness, In keepin
th
th
x am i a ti o
c on si st s i n c o s id e i n
h et h
th
object corresponds to
t im e
Inasmuch as natura mediatel
a p l ie d to. can-
in respect
h et h
that consciousnes give directly to itself
I t i s r ov i e d w it h i t o w s ta nd ar d n o g iv e a t t h s a
th
consciousnes rule conscious-
does no drop Into consciousnessfro
th sky. Consciousnes itself is a lr e d y i t
t h t ru t
with th
expression "itsel with its
it"
this explanatio
is this; ever time we represen phenomen
with whic we measur fall within consciousnes itself Cansciousness supplies In consciousnes itself the
tWO.
essential
when he want to sa that consciousnes regard as true that
moment of th examination. We who.mak th presenta
whic it ha directly represented. Consciousness, indirectly
t io n t hu s d er i
representing is absorbed by what is represented, an na specifically refe what is r ep re se n e d b a
t h m ax i
t ha t g ui d
a l r e r es en ti n
of
does
to it el as
th on that represents True consciousnes does have in its
Accordingly, th basi attitude of absolute knowledg is no 97
t o a ss ai l p he no me na !
c on sc io us ne s
it
p an op l
o f k no wl -
it id
t ta i
at n,
in
if t h
ap ar ce
th
itself."
ic
o f t h r ea l is appearance
Th
appearin
i n c on sc io us ne s
al
no le
to ts
j e t - a tt e ig
r ea li t
r ep re se nt e
is
ce
ar ce
it is in and tO
t ru t
is
consciousnes
itself
th
is
th
em
is
it ar he
f ir s s ta te me n
is from
at
a bo u
Concept." W he re ve r
is
es
e s e d in
Bu
c on sc io u n es s
on ci
c on sc io us ne ss :
ner in
c on sc io us ne s
re
will tr
is
tr
"for us." Sine
it lf ts
nc t,
itself
provides er
it."
is
consciousnes
ap ar --
o r it"
"-t
this it ar
ject."
th ef
th ef
tt
aI ed
j ec t
then knowledg
pearance.
er
is
If
en th
is t h
consciousness. Bu if k no wl ed g
If
ed
as
knowledg
ed
is thu
representation
of somethin
as
it," fo natural
j ec t
a s s uc h is called th
qua phenomenal
ness is cept"
is
e n i ca l
th
tu
is t h co
e,
th
o bj ec t
disposal
he
ed
lf
its knowledge."
an
by consciousnes
ex
re
l ic i l y a t th
is
ti
itself, there
o u d is po sa l i n o fa r a s w e a r et
ts
itself
proposes to measur ce
io
ci
have
lutely]
object
conceived is the
in
is
in. this
is not
c on sc io u n es s o ur se lv e
ur di
ax
If
er
is 99
io
en ti
it remain
obscur
is
pose to have received something, an to possessalread th standard itself Grante be measured an
that both th knowledg whic
is to
th standard of measurement, fall within
consciousness, so that we need only to receiv them--still,
i nc e o t
r e for consciousness,
thei comparison
correspond or fail be
consciousnes itself is
whethe it knowledg of th object to
correspond with this object will
matter for consciousnes
itself. be for consciousness
withou ou contribution Everything that is essentia in th p re s n ta t o n- d e s
i t n o in t h
n d r em ai n d ep en de n
ou ow activity What abou th examinatio s t n da r
ar wh
itself with
only as consciousnes knows it; consciousnes seems, as i t w e e , u na bl e t o g e b eh i
t h o bj ec t
it, not as
it
consciousnes also seem unable to examin
but as it is in iisel]
is for consciousness.
it with th object Bu
th difference betwee th in-itsel an k no w
b je c a t a ll . o m t hi n
th for-itself is the in·itself,
is
for con-
Hegel:
13
ut
er to se
Therefor
its ow knowledg by comparin
t he y a re ?
ino r
c o t ri b t io n b y u s b ec o e s s up er fl u u s n o o nl y
in connection with th side of th investigatio just outl in ed -t h is to
C o c ep t a n o bj ec t t h
n d w ha t
x am in ed , a r p r s en t i n c on sc io u n es s i ts el f
m o e nt s I nd ee d undertak
ea ur
An therefor
sinc
consciousnes examines itself what remain fo us on this side of th investigatio
too, is simply th pure ac
For consciousnes is
consciousnes of th object and, on th other, consciousn es s o f i t s el f it i s c on sc io us ne s o f true an
differentiation, whic exists an is presen at hand that the examination is
h a t o i t is the
consciousnes of it knowledg of this truth. 10
r ou nd ed . A n
f , i n t hi s c om p r i
son, th tw moment do no correspond then it seems t ha t c on sc io u n es s w il l h av e t o l te r i t k no wl ed g i n o rd e t o b ri n
is
th actual examination.
of observation.
sciousness is to it stil anothe moment It is upon this
it
alteration of th knowledge, however, th object itself become to consciousnes somethin been altere
ha in fact
as well Fo th knowledg whic existe
wa essentiall sinc it wa
whic
knowledg of th object with change
an essentia part of this knowledge. Henc
it co es to as
o r c on sc i u sn es s t ha t 10
ha ha be
in-itself
i ts el f e s s . When there-
fore consciousnes find it knowledg no correspond in
i t i t o bj ec t t h
b je c i ts e w il l a ls o g iv e
a tu r
h a s ho w
i ts el f i n s e e ra l r e p ec t
sciousness is t h i mm ed ia t k no wl ed g r eg ar d a s t ru e N at ur a
a tu r
co
t h o bj ec t t h
it
c on sc io us n s s i s a t t h s am e t im e
ay is
does no specifically refe back to that knowing. Consciousn es s o f t h o bj ec t n d t h c on sc io u n es s o f k n w le dg e r e
fails t o e nd ur e t h c ou rs e o f t h e xa mi na t o n T hu s t h
examinatio bu
is no only an examinatio
ls of th
t an da r
us
of knowledge,
i n t h e x m in at io n t se lf .
Heidegger: TH
THIRTEENT
th Same to whic both object an knowledge, ar known. t he r a r
t h s am e t i
or th
a me , f o
o ns c o us ne s
itself Consciousnes is fo it th differentiatio
of each from
th other. Consciousnes is by it nature th comparison of SECTIO
in an explaining th thir
answer that question by mak-
th on with th other. This comparison is the examination.
statemen abou consciousness.
"Consciousness examines itself."
The statement is inconspicuous, buried in a n i nd ep en de n
s e t en c
subclause. Pu
i t r u s : " C n sc io us n s s e x
But consciousnes is properly speaking th only in
becom-
amines itself." That is to say: Consciousness, inasmuch as
ing w he th e t h
it is consciousness, is
t hu s
modem
what knowledg
metaphysics-consciousness,
being
conscious-is
graspe adequately in though only if we when thinking of
k no wl ed g c or re s o nd s
t h t ru e o bj ec t w he th e
when such
whic
is deter-
mine by th fact that knowledg isconscious I n t h e xa mi na ti o measurin
o t w ha t i s t o b e
e as ur e a n t h
standard ar presen together Thus thei meet
i mm ed ia te l
h e o bj ec t c o r es p n d t o
t ak e
e ls e e yo n
mediat
of consciousnes consists in
must open itself
abou whatever it ha
f o t r e ; w he n i t d is c v er s w ha t i t h e assoo as it represents th object in it
o bj ec ti vi ty . A cc or di n l y
in in consciousnes is neve only th consequenc of some
10
exists only
proces of becoming occurs that is, when con-
know with certaint s o e th i
t h o bj ec t a n
actually knows. Examinatio
sciousness discover th actual trut amination, specifically of an examinatio
examinatio
h er e i s o r c on sc io us ne s
th ob ec an
representation of th
10
t il l
b ey on d i t o w i m
object....-..,somethin whic
it
In th discussion of th firs statemen abou consciousness it become clea that natura
consciousnes is "merely
."
Th fact that Hege make al thes differentiations an ye levels them all d ow n n t k ee pi n
t he m r o
re so in th knowledge as knowledge But natura consciousnes doe not t ro u l e t o a y a tt en ti o
t o t hi s " as ,
ec us
it accept as
ge er
i st i g u s hi ng , t hu s
o mi n i nt o h e
e r n at ur e o f
ow
h a i t h id d
e t p h s ic s n o
th ba ic
metaphysical stance of Hegelian philosophy Th
hidden
nature of metaphysic isresponsibl also fo th fact that th leve to whic th difference ar levele down isdetermine
"as." An
sinc natura consciousnes follow it ow head its head-
hi
d is cr im i a ti o
p r s e t s i ts el f
th
d is ti nc ti o
ratio, reason Hege conceive th distinctio
of
as th nega
tion of th negation curiously, is before it
it
sciousness is c om pa ri so n e nt at io n o f t h
nd
et ga
i s n ot . I n i t
b j c t c o s ci ou s e s i s b y i t n a u r
he
differentiatio
betwee
betwee trut
an knowledge. Consciousnes isnot only that
differentiatio
"being-ill-itself" an
whic is at th same time no
a l d u c au ti o
a n m ak in g t h
e c s sa r r es er v
ep e-
"being fo it,"
to
distinctions posite
by Hegel-
the
difference we mentione
earlie in anothe context. Sinc natura consciousnes goes t ra ig h t o t h o bj e
as
p ar ti cu l
b ei n
an in th sa
differentiaconstantly stay with it it coul be called onti conscious-
w it h i t o bj e t iv i y , o f k no wl e g e
it
i t b ei n
Consciousnes itself isthe comparison-thoug
no n.
natura con-
TO OJ
( be i g )
d e i gn at e
h at ev e
e rt ai n
t o b ei n s . B u t h
sciousness to be sure neve specifically performs that com-
Gree 6J!-beings-harbors
parison.
of beingness ( o O O - L a ) whic does no by an mean remain
within itse.lfa peculiar nature
In th nature of consciousness, knowledg an th object words consciousness, again, object an
an "beings" in thought, we firs of al presuppose
concep ar spli apar in to th variou change of meanin an to th meanin itself
ness this qualit
itself issplit apar an ye ca neve part
a s i t is establishe at an give time in history. When beings 10
In its ambiguity,
d es ig na te s b ot h
ha
is p re se n
an
v,
Soga subiectum,
tnrOKElp.EVOV,
the subiectum i n e r
the
ub ct es
ceives is
io
Since
it is p o i b
ciple "being,
ov.,
the
at er
(>..eYHv)
as
of S O K O V v r a . ,
that is, of
tr
in
Sota
p er ce iv e
ceiv
it presence-s-thi
b el on g
fOUTa,
E!vat,
VO€ZJI
as
ai
er
an
is al ea
ga er
to
is
ei
change
on
t im e t o a no th er ,
to
ha es
t hi s g at he ri ng ,
th
per-
at er
presence is p er ce iv e
by
POEZJI.
in
er nc at ar
JlOEZJI
d ir ec tl y w ha t is
If
qua h i
t og et he r w it h
What
fOJl.
the
a t is p re se n
ua it
its presence
an
will
es from
M yo S' , a ls o c ha ng e
in
et ph
co ci
th
he
in
of
.}'6yoS'
er
51', th
is present,
hi
en
qn)(n'i,
i s p e se n
ed
ap ar ce
le
co ea ed
f ar io u n es s o f w ha t i s p re se nt ,
co in
th
(1)1a, i s c on ce iv e
i-
ap
cs
eg
is present. Ther ceiving (Sf"xEUea.~),
in
th
ca is
h ic h
p ec if ic al l
it
ra es
l at o
o we v
mischievou
disorder (Unwesen)
is
~J •.
that interpretation
th
th
So~a. By contrast, p er ce iv e
ha
VO€ZII
With
is reit gives t. if
i n i t p re se nc e er ce
/0
begins
is that perception
i s p re se n
ha
a s t ha t
its
ay
eg
c p a . t I l E u e c u , the self-manifesting
e v i li n
th 10
am ig ty
t)1) remains
ho
-s
t ut e t h
th
is
th
t le s e s
e ta ph y i cs . As
n at ur e o f
&"
in
this baselessness
ca
th
on ti
e ma i
ho
ho
at on
Thus
it at
Ontological i g i e
"ontology.'
its
xi
it
o nt ol og ic al . i m e di at e
th
iv
ry
un
we
r ep re se nt in g
he
of in
th
A cc or di ng l
at th
is being
b ei ng ne s
tu
it i n e p
naturaIself-testing
consciousness itself is neve
.on
b ei ng s i nt o t he i
ei
nd
nature.
in
consciousnes
so
cu
It
ea
is not
on
itself its sciousnes
natura
is
ts ab ec
is
it
tha
a t is is
ce le es
ay
h e r ep re se nt in g oi conscious-
t o e xa mi na ti on .
ness in itself is
in its nature. ter
it is s ub je c
goes o n c an st an tl y
b eh in d its
c on sc io us ne ss , in its
ay
o f b ei ng s i s o nt i
c on sc io u n es s
Fo
naturall
pre-ontological
it Is
aI ou io
is n a
th as
thus is
lr ad
gh
ga er
nt og al
j ec t
on ci
es
ep ts
Bu
en
tu
co
io
hi
be au
t te n o n
it alread sents it,
is
e ct i i t
l o c al ,
ch
tu
an
pr
to
ic
th skepsls
id
de
a s t ru e ie
It
ee in
is
t ru e a n
o nt ol og ic a
being conscious, mean
truth, Sinc
i ca l
ness is w it h w ha t i s o nt ol og ic al l
p hi lo so ph ic a
o pi ni o
r em ai n
b eh in d
i s i n t ru t
b ef or e, "
background
i s i t e lf , t ha t is
conscious
is ontically r ep re se nt ed . As that comparison, 10
.it
n-
consciousness, or
being this differentiation
th .So
it is its ow a nt ic al l
el
je ts to
at
is preto .g al ei
it
repreti
al
c h it r eg ar d
in
s ci ou sn es s, a
" ha vi n
B u p hi lo so ph y
s ee n. "
i ts el f s tr ug gl e 10
a t t im e
a ga in s skepsis, It
p r f er s t o k ee p t o t h a cc us to m
p in i n s o f n at ur a c on -
This becoming is,
sciousness It does admit, of course that th object qua ob-
w h c h i s a c om pa ri s n .
je
o nl y b y
u s s ur el y h av e o bj e t iv it y B u
j e t iv it y i s
nl
th
k ee p t o o rd in a
w hi c
p in i
o r p hi lo so ph y o b
i s n o - ob je ct i e .
an
t ri e
b e r ep re se nt e
r ec ed in g i ts el f T h
k ep si s l oo k a he a
al t se l
h il o o ph y
r ea s u r i t t ha t i t is
actually in th right; for, says philosophy this non-objectiv l em en t c a
h e e x m in at io n c a p ro c e d
Th sixt sectio alread
indicate
that natura consciousIf its
o nl y i n t h r e r es en ta ti on s o f
fo it truth, it turn ou that
ordinary consciousness, which representations are therefore
presumed truth is scrutinize
n ad eq ua t
knowledg does no correspond to it object becaus it will
s u a nc e ev
an
me
go do
t oy in g
ea il wi
i t s ym bo ls ; a n s uc h a s n a u ra l c o s ci o s ne s
an
c on ve y t o i t t h i m r es si o t ha t t he y r e c ri ti ca l p hi -
l o o ph y s e i n
ta
s ke pt ic a
t ti tu d
t ow ar d
to th trut
of th object consciousnes must change knowl-
n-
edge such as it ha been so far. Bu even whil knowledg is
t ol og y B u s ke ps i o f t hi s k in d i s m er el y t h s em bl an c o f
changing it knowledg of th object th object itself too,
s ke p i s a n
has changed.
hu
th
no respon to th object's objectivity. In orde to do justic
f li gh t f ro m h in k n g i nt o h e s ys te m o f
However, if skepsi accomplishes itself in thoroughgoin skepticism then thinking progresses within th framewor of metaphysic as th comparison of th onti with th preontologica consciousness, whic
object ca no longer be determined on th basi of previous opinio
concerning objects. Thos
stil at work even when objectivit
opinions however, ar is proposed only in term
comparison is performe
by ontologica consciousness. Th latter does no divorc it l o o ph y o cc up ie s i ts el f w it h b ei n n at ur e o f o ns c o us ne s a s t h o ri g n a u n t y o f o nt i
an
pre-ontological representation. Whe the compariso occurs th examinatio
th
g lo r f ic at io n o f t h
thoughtles inadequacy inherent in ordinary opinion. In th examinin
comparison whic look ahea into th
is in progress an in this occurrence con-
sciousness appear to itself within th real
of appearance
It is presen to itself It is. Consciousnes is by coming into
its ow truth, i.e. it is by becoming. 10
n at ur a o nl y t r
k no wl ed g o f t h
b je c
u pp os ed l
th
on
nd
k n w le dg e f ai l t o s t n d u p b u t h o bj ec t i ts el f
examination, whic
constitute th nature of consciousnes
ness in this very process; it ceasesto be th in-itsel an become to consciousnes an object whic is the in-itself
s t n d u p u nd e e x m in at io n ha
meanwhil
o t f ai l b ef or e t h
w hi c
only fo
arisen in
it. An
therefor it follow that this th beingo f t hi s i n- it se lf ,
[or-consciousness
itself.
is
t o s a t ha t h i t ru e is the essence or consciousness' new object. This ne
object contains th annihilation of th
first i t i s h e e xp er i n c
o ns t t ut e
t h o ug h h a
i rs t
object.
Hegel:
14 This dialectical movement c is e o n i t s el f- o
it
whic
n ow le dg e
w el l a s i t
-is,
b je c
me it, precisel
sciousness
Heidegger:
consciousnes exer
TH FOURTEENTHECTIONpen with th sentence "Thi dialectical movement whic
that whic
called experience.
I n t hi s c on ne ct io n t h r e is
f ur th e a rt i u la t
ha
is
self--on it knowledg as well as it object-is, n ew ,
ue ob ec
e me rg e
of it, precisel that whic s ci en ti fi c a s e c o f t h
e w l ig h f ol lo wi n
a y b e cast p r s en t t io n
t ha t H eg e n am e w i C on -
sciousness knows something,
consciousnes exercise en it
th
B ei n o f
subjects an
ns
e su l
is called experience." What is it
th
or
" ex pe ri en c " ? H e n a e s
e in gs . B e n g h av e m e n wh il e therewit
as
as th
u sn e
e co m t h
have become object an objective.
senc or th in-itself. B u t hi s b je c i s a ls o t h in-itself fo consciousness; an henc th ambiguit of this trut come into play We se that consciousnes no b je c s ; o n i s t h f ir s in-it.self b e in g -f o r- c on s ci o us n es s
in whic
ha tw ha
o f t h i i n -i ts e lf . Th latter seem
at firs to be merely th reflection of consciousnes into
consciousness-that
present, is th in
o f h e i rs t o bj e t . B u
a s l re ad y i nd i
cated, th firs object come to be altere 11
for conscious
Consciousness, by bein
i s i s phenomena knowledge The ter
e ge l n am e t ha t
the
The
p er ie n e . its k no wl ed g
whic exists by being known
appearance
h ic h a pp ea r
is implie
In vi tu of th
k in d
i t a pp ea rs ,
in (qua, as), beings ar though
of in thei beingness. Experience is o w or
"experience"
n so f
k no wl ed ge . E xp er ie nc e n o 11
l e g e t h t er m is
B ei ng , i n
ei
i s a pp r h e d e
b y w a o f b ei ng s qua
beings Experience designates th subject' subjectness. Ex perience expresses wha "being"
that unit
as whic
itself is th examinin
consciousnes ha it being, in comparison from whic both emerge
does it
together with th appearance of what appears. Th nature
scious leaves stil to be thought.
of appearance is experience This word must from no
on
Th strang word "experience' enters into ou reflection th nature of consciousness. come due. True this nary usage, an
se of
f al l t ot a l y
u ts id e
or i-
of philosophica usag as well Bu it falls
to usas th result of th very thin to whic Hegel' though remain attached Th justificatio e s e nt ia ll y d if fe re n f r
m er e
in what Hegel, with th precedin
of this usage, whic a n e r o f s pe a i n
consciousnes outlin th
fo eg in
r ef l c ti on ,
it
th
t hr e
s ta te me nt s
to be
e nt io ne d a l
lo g, he au
it
in it wa
unavoid-
is l ie s
paragraphs ha brough
to ligh concerning th nature of consciousness. Th statements abou
Bu th
abou consciousness, ha brough ou somethin that needed
thre
basi structur
whic
th decisive word "experience" occurs Th verb of
all three statement are ambiguous-th
"is" in th first, th
"provides" in th second an th "examines" in th third. Consciousness is i t o w c o c e t , a n
t h s am e t im e it
of that nature on ep co es
i n c on s i o s ne s a n
finds itself in th concept.
"Bu consciousnes is its own Concept."
Consciousnes provides itself with it ow standard
"Consciousness provides itself with it ow standard."
consciousnes comes fro t at em en t i s a n x p i ca ti o
o f t h f i s t in this in whic
e t e r w it h
ha
an
th
i t m ea su re s f a l s
t hi s t an da r i th i
consciousnes itself which comes
i t a pp e r a c e a s a b o lu t c er ta in ty .
do
n ot , i n t h
con-
sciousness conceive of itself in it truth, is th standard of h i p ro c s s o f s el f- c n c i vi n
an
It
"Consciousness examines itself." he se on
c o s ci ou s e s
to
c on s i o s ne ss .
object that in eac instance is untrue neve does hold up consciousness, so to speak, does no come clea with it Consciousnes examines itself an 115
ye agai
it does not.
It examines itself in that th comparison of objectivit an object is that in virtue of whic nd it do
consciousnes is
appear as such Th presentation of appearance is
is
o t e xa mi n i ts el f in that natura consciousnes
men by which consciousnes realizes its own reality. Hege
obstinatel hold to it ow opinio an offersits ow truth, unexamined,a
call
this movement emphatic.aI1y "dialectical."
th absolute truth.
By thi ambiguity consciousnes betray the fundamental h ic h l l t h s a
i t i s n o y et .
o ns ci ou sn es s. i n t h s en s in
we
b ef or e n o i n w ha t f ol l w s A cc or di n l y
u r r e l ec ti on s s o f a o n t h migh be tempte
a tu r
o f o ns ci ou sn es s O n
to offe an explanatio
of th dialectica an
antithesis,
is
sh ll tr
synthesis; or
in
self-direction toward the "already.
It make it wa toward
," o ti o
t h w ay . T h
H e e l t hi nk s a s e xp er i n c h a t h c h r ac t
m ov em en t I n H eg el ' s en te nc e s ta ti n perience, "This dialectical isreaU
o ve me n . .
h e a tu r
of ex
[ th e f i s t
o rd s
what is called experience understood here in th
ligh of what th scienc of phenomenal knowledg presents
ay
t he si s h a i t b ei n i n c on sc io us -
sofa as negativity is understood in term of negation Th character of consciousness, however, is s u p os e t o b e d e dia-
l ec ti c
assume that Hege characterize th presentation as o f e x e ri e c e m e e l i n r de r t o s tr es s t h
kind
u s k ee p t o
empt construction Experience as we must thin of it here does no belong to th presentation as
mark ofthe specific
rather presentation belong to th
nature of experience. Experienc 116
is th appearance of what
m er e
m et ho d o f n ow in g o r
h et h
i t i s p ar t
of objectiv realit assomethin that is real itself This prob le
nature of presentation
is in an
ness, and consciousness, too is th ground of negativity in-
s ci ou s e s c on s s t i n i t b ei n i n e in g w hi c
t hi n t h
wh
isa pseudo-problem as long as it remains undetermined o ns ti t t e t h
r e l it y o f h e r ea l in what way this
realit reside in th bein of consciousness, an t er s s ta n
it
t ha t k in d
e in g
I ec ti c r e l ik e a n a tt em p t o x pl a
ho
mat-
i sc u s io n a bo u d ia u rg i
f ou nt ai n in
term of th stagnant waters of th sewer. Th fountain ma st ll
l on g w a o ff . B u w e m us t try to poin in its direc-
tion with Hegel' help 17
'[
Consciousness is qua consciousnes its own movement, for it is th
comparison betwee
edge an
ontologica knowledge. Th
second Th
first lays clai
to th
first. Be-
tween (aLa)
sciousness in it accomplished truth, is. positional characte th
thes claims
In that dialogue consciousnes as
ltly€£v.
is
OtaltfYEtV
consciousness. Being
self-gathering of the dialogue-Shapes of con
onti pre-ontologica knowl-
second claims to he
whol real
thoroughgoin
OW
View more...
Comments
