««
home»»
Chapter II.
Perception – Thing and Deception
[1. Thing of many properties]
[2. Deception becomes reflection ]
[3. Whole again]
[4. Perception becomes understanding ]
2.
The object must now be defined more closely and the definition will be briefly developed in light of the result that emerged above. Full development would not be in place here. 2Since the object's principle, the universal, is mediated simplicity, the object must express this in itself as being its own nature. It does so by unfolding itself into the thing of many properties. 3The wealth of the knowledge of sense belongs to perception not to immediate certainty [I. Sense certainty §2.1], where it was no more than a pool of examples, instances; for only perception has negation, difference, multiplicity in its essence.
3.
This is now something that is not this; it is overcome and as such certainly no mere null. It is a determinate null, that of a content, namely of this. 2The sensuous aspect is still there, but not as it was in sense certainty, as the intended, meant individual particular [I. Sense certainty §12.1]; now it is a universal, something that will define itself as property. 3Overcoming reveals its true double meaning here, just what we saw in the case of the negative. It is a move of simultaneous negation and preservation. Null here is this' null and as such it preserves immediacy remaining itself sensuous, only now it's a universal immediacy.
– 4This being, however, is a universal by virtue of the mediation or negative within it. Expressing, externalizing this in its own immediacy makes a differentiated, determinate property out of being. 5This would at once establish many such properties, each the negative of another. 6In fact, expressed just in the simplicity of the universal, such features, which only really firm up into properties with a further shot of definition, still refer exclusively to themselves; they remain indifferent to each other, each for itself and free from the rest. 7Moreover, simple, self-identical universality here is distinct from these, its features, and independent of them. Pure self-relation of itself to itself, it is the medium in which all these features exist. They all penetrate each other in this universality, this simple, integral unity, without ever making contact with each other, for participating in this universality is precisely what gives them their indifference and independence.
– 8This abstract universal medium, which can be called simply thinghood or pure essence, is nothing other than the here and now as it proved to be in sense certainty, namely a simple conjunction of many here's and now's [I. Sense certainty §18.5, §19.3, §21.10]. As features, the many are themselves but universals. 9This salt is a simple here and simultaneously many. It is white, also sharp, also cubic in form, also of definite weight, and so on. 10All these various features/properties are contained in a simple here, in which they therefore penetrate each other; none of them has a different here than the others; all are contained in the same here throughout, along with each of the others; and yet, without being separated into distinct here's, in all this penetration they don't affect each other at all. The whiteness does not colour or change the cubic property, nor do either of them affect the sharp taste, and so on. Since each is a simple relation of itself to itself, it leaves the others alone, relating to them only through that indifferent also. 11This also is thus the pure universal itself or the medium, thinghood, holding them all together.
4.
In the scenario that has emerged, initially only the character of positive universality has been observed and developed. There's also the other side that has to be incorporated. 2Those determinate properties can't really be determinate at all if they are completely indifferent, relating solely to themselves. Determinate they can only be when they differentiate themselves from each other and enter into a relation of opposition. 3Such opposition means they cannot just be together in the simple unity of their medium, even if that unity is quite as essential to them as negation. The difference between them – more than indifferent, here exclusive, negating others – thus falls outside this simple medium. Not only a mere also of indifferent unity, the medium is now also the one of exclusive unity.
– 4One is the moment of negation, autonomously relating itself simply to itself, exclusive, sharpening thinghood into thing. 5Negation in the property is the definition that is immediately one with the immediacy we call being; and unity with negation makes this immediacy of being universality. But one now, here we have negation liberated from that unity with its opposite [being]; now negation really is in and for itself.
5.
These moments together represent the complete thing as the truth of perception, at least as far as it is necessary to develop it here. 2The thing is: α) indifferent, passive universality, the also of the many properties or better: materials; β) negation, just as integral, one, the exclusion of opposing properties; and γ) the many properties themselves, the relation between the first two moments. This last, γ, is negation as it relates to the indifferent element, α, spreading out within it as many differences, β; γ is the singularity point in the medium of persistence radiating into multiplicity. 3These differences belong to the indifferent medium and in that are themselves universal, relating only to themselves without impinging upon each other. They also belong to the negative unity, however, which makes them simultaneously exclusive, a relation of opposition they have necessarily to properties excluded from their also. 4Sensuous universality, the immediate unity of being and the negative, is first here properly property; namely when the one, exclusive unity, and the also, pure universality, are developed out of it and distinguished from each other while being held together by it. Relating sensuous universality to its pure essential moments in this way finally completes the thing.
6.
This is how the thing is composed in perception. Consciousness is in perceiving mode when its object is such a thing. Here consciousness has only to accept this kind of object; its behaviour now is pure reception and what emerges to it in this is truth. 2If consciousness exerted itself in any way in this reception, its additions and/or subtractions would alter the truth. 3The object is true and universal, self-identical. Consciousness, however, regards itself as variable and inessential, which is why it can receive the object incorrectly and deceive itself. 4Perceiving mode includes an awareness of the possibility of deception. This is because in universality, perception's principle, otherness itself is immediately there for it, but null, overcome. 5Thus the truth criterion of the perceiving mode of consciousness is self-identity and its behaviour is about receiving what is self-identical. 6What is different from and other than it, is also there for it, which is why perception is an act of relating the various moments of its reception to each other. Any disparity arising in this comparison can't be an untruth in the object, for the object is self-identical; it must lie in the process of perception.
7.
Let's take a closer look at what consciousness experiences in its actual perception process. 2For us, that experience is there in the development both of the object and of consciousness' behaviour towards it just given. Beyond that, there's also the development of the contradictions present within it.
– 3The object I receive presents itself as pure one, but I become aware also of property in it, which is universal, going beyond singularity, oneness. 4Thus, the first being of objective essence, as a one, was not its true being. Still, the object is the truth, so the untruth lies in me; my reception was faulty. 5Now property's universality forces me to regard objective essence instead as a collective. 6But more, I perceive property as something determinate, with that opposition in it setting it against others and excluding them. 7I still didn't get it right when I regarded objective essence as a collective with others, i.e. as continuity. For property being determinate requires me to break up the continuity and take objective essence as exclusive one. 8In the separated one I find lots of such properties not impinging upon each other, indifferent to one another. This, in turn, undermines my perception of the object as something exclusive. Here it is, as in the case of sheer continuity before, a universal collective medium in which many features, sensuous universals all, exist each for itself, on its own account, and all are determinate excluding the others. 9What I perceive here as simple and true is thus not a universal medium any more, but rather the single property for itself. But wait! This means that it is really neither property nor determinate being. Look, it is now neither in any one nor does it stand in relation to others. 10The former is a condition for it to be a property and the latter is required for it to be determinate. 11A pure relation of itself to itself, it is no more than sensuous being as such precisely because it no longer possesses the character of negativity. The consciousness for which such a sensuous being exists is now no more than meaning [I. Sense certainty (2. Mean) §§8-13], i.e. consciousness has fallen out of perception completely and returned back into itself. 12Not to worry, because sensuous being and meaning themselves transit into perception. Not just thrown back to the start, I am in fact once again sucked into that same loop, that self-overcoming circulation system, overcoming itself as a whole and in every single moment.
8.
Repetition of the cycle is thus necessary, but it's no simple rerun of the first cycle. 2Now consciousness has the experience about perception under its belt. Now it has the result that the truth of perception is its own dissolution, the reflection into itself from out of the true. 3The essential make-up of consciousness' process of perceiving now comes into clear relief. It is no mere pure reception, for it is that together with the reflection into itself from out of the true. 4This return of consciousness into itself, immediately mixing in with pure reception – the return has shown itself to be essential to perception – quite literally changes the truth. 5Consciousness acknowledges this aspect right away as its own and takes responsibility for it; by doing so it will obtain the true object in its purity.
– 6Just as it happened with sense certainty, now it's happening with perception that consciousness is driven back into itself, but not exactly in the same sense as before, as if the truth of perception fell back into it [I. Sense certainty §11.4]. On the contrary, consciousness recognizes that it's the untruth present therein which falls in it. 7This insight is what enables it to overcome, eliminate the untruth. Distinguishing its reception of the true from the untruth of its perception, consciousness corrects it. Now, to the extent that consciousness itself makes this correction, the truth of perception does indeed fall within it. 8Below we look again at the behaviour of consciousness, delving deeper. One thing is clear: consciousness is so constituted that it no longer merely perceives. Now it is aware of its own reflection into itself and separates this from simple reception.
9.
First I become aware of the thing as something singular, one, and must hold fast to it in this its true definition. If anything emerges in the course of perceiving it contradicting this, then I have to recognize it as my own reflection. 2Various properties emerge in the perception, which appear to be properties of the thing; but the thing is one, and we are aware that the variety of properties, which deprives the thing of its oneness, falls in us. 3This thing is thus indeed only white when brought before our eyes; also sharp on our tongues, also cubic to our touch, and so on. 4We do not receive the total diversity of aspects from the thing; we take it from ourselves. They fall apart in us, in our eye, so completely different from our tongue, and so on. 5We thus constitute the universal medium in which such moments separate themselves and exist for themselves, independently. 6Recognizing this kind of definition here, universal medium, as our own reflection, we now obtain the self-identity and truth of the thing, that of being one.
10.
These various aspects taken over by consciousness are, seen as present in the universal medium, each for itself, determinate, defined. White is white only in opposition to black and so on; the thing is one precisely by virtue of opposing others. 2Being one, however, doesn't really mean it excludes others from it; for one is just universal self-relation; being one makes it effectively identical to all other ones [compare I. Sense certainty §13.2,3]. No, it's down to being determinate; having definition is what makes the thing exclude others. 3Things here are thus in and for themselves determinate; they have properties that distinguish them from other things. 4Because it's the thing's own property, determinate within the thing itself, the thing has several properties. 5First, the thing is the true; truth is inherent to it and what is in this sense intrinsic is there as its own essence, not due to anything else. Therefore, second, determinate properties are not there due to or on behalf of other things; they are intrinsic to the thing itself. However, they are determinate properties in it only to the extent that there are several of them each distinguishing themselves from each other. Third, then, existing within thinghood in this way is what makes each in and for itself, indifferent to each other. 6It is indeed the thing itself that is white and also cubic, also sharp, and so on, which is as much as to say that the thing is that also, the universal medium in which the various properties exist apart from one another without coming into contact with or overcoming, cancelling each other. This is how the thing is perceived as what is true.
11.
There's something else going on here though. In this very process of perception consciousness is now acutely aware that it also reflects itself into itself, namely that right there in perception as such the moment opposed to the above also is present as well. 2The moment in question is unity of the thing with itself excluding difference. 3Unity is thus what consciousness has to take responsibility for, because the thing is itself the persistence of the various distinct and independent properties. 4The thing is described as white, also cubic, also sharp, etc. 5But insofar as it is white, it is not cubic; insofar as it is white and cubic it is not sharp, and so on. 6Bringing these properties together is a task only for consciousness, which must therefore beware of letting them simply fall into oneness in the thing. 7This is why consciousness relies on a qualifying expression like insofar as, which it uses to keep the properties apart and establish the thing as the also. 8Consciousness only really takes responsibility for oneness when what is called property is imagined as free material. 9This is how the thing is elevated to the true also and, as a collection of materials, instead of being one, becomes a mere enveloping surface.
12.
Looking back now and comparing what consciousness formerly saw as its responsibility to what it does now, what it formerly assigned to the thing and what it assigns to it now, we find that in fact it assigns both roles – the one and the also, the former free of multiplicity, the latter breaking up into independent materials – alternately to itself and to the thing. 2This comparison shows consciousness that not only is the difference between reception and the return into itself intrinsic to its perception of the truth, but more surprisingly it turns out that what is true, the thing, takes on both these roles too. 3Here we have the experience that the thing presents itself to receiving consciousness in a very specific manner while simultaneously, free of that, being reflected into itself, i.e. the thing possesses a truth in itself contrasting with and opposed to that presentation.
13.
Now consciousness too is beyond this second mode of behaviour in perception. It's over the attitude that regards the thing as the true self-identical while taking itself as the non-identical, something that leaves that identity behind, returning into itself. Now consciousness realizes that for it the object is this whole motion, formerly divided between object and consciousness [compare I. Sense certainty §14]. 2The thing is one reflected into itself; it exists for itself; but it is also for another and these two are quite distinct. 3Being for itself and also for another, the thing is doubled, differentiated being, but it is also one. Oneness contradicts its multiplicity. Consciousness should really once again take this unification upon itself here and keep it apart from the thing. 4That would require it to say that the thing is not for another insofar as it is for itself. 5Experience has taught consciousness that the thing does possess oneness; the thing is essentially reflected into itself. 6Indeed, also, indifferent difference, happens in the thing just as much as oneness, but, because the two are distinct, not in the same but in different things. The contradiction present in objective essence as such distributes itself between two objects. 7No doubt the thing is as such in and for itself, self-identical, but this unity with itself is disturbed by other things. This is how the unity of the thing is secured while otherness is kept at bay, away from both: outside the thing and outside consciousness.
14.
Although objective essence's contradiction is divided between different things in this way, that only ensures that difference will emerge in the separated, singular thing. 2The different things are thus established on their own account, for themselves, and conflict falls out between them reciprocally, such that each is not distinct from itself, but only distinct from the other. 3Each acquires definition as something distinguished with its essential difference from the others within it, but not as an internal antithesis. Rather, the thing is simple definition for itself and this constitutes its essential character distinguishing it from others. 4In fact, since it has variety in it, that variety is necessary to it as the actual difference of varied composition. 5However, definition constitutes the essence of the thing distinguishing it from others and rendering it for itself, which means that this other variety, of composition namely, is inessential. 6Clearly, the thing contains that doubled insofar as in its unity, but with unequal values, so this state of opposition does not lead to an actual antithesis within the thing. Since its absolute difference pushes it into opposition, this must be with something else external to it. 7There is other variety necessarily in the thing, which cannot be left out of it, but it remains inessential to it.
15.
This definition, the thing's essential character distinguishing it from all others, is now so determined that it brings the thing into opposition with others while maintaining its autonomy therein. 2However, it is only a thing, a one existing for itself, insofar as it does not stand in such relations to others binding it to them, the end of being for itself, autonomy. 3The thing relates to others precisely through its absolute character and its opposition and is here essentially nothing but this behaviour of relating. Such relation, however, is the negation of its autonomy so it is the thing's own essential property that brings about its downfall.
16.
The necessity of the experience for consciousness, that the thing is undone precisely by that defining characteristic which constitutes its essence and its autonomy, its being for itself, can be briefly summarized according to the basic concepts involved as follows. 2The thing is asserted as being for itself, absolute negation of all otherness, and thus as a negation that is absolute in the sense of solely referring itself to itself. But such self-referential negation is its own overcoming: its essence lies in another.
17.
Indeed, the object's definition, as it has emerged here, contains nothing else. The object is supposed to have an essential property constituting its simple, integral autonomy and despite this simplicity also to include variety within it, a variety that is necessary but does not constitute the essential definition. 2But this distinction lies only in the words. Something supposedly at once inessential and necessary overcomes itself. It is what we just described as negation of itself, self-referential negation.
18.
Now the last insofar that separated independence, being for itself, and dependence, being for another, falls away. In one and the same sense the object is literally it's own opposite: for itself insofar as it is for another and for another insofar as it is for itself. 2The object is for itself, reflected into itself, one. However, this being for itself, being reflected into itself, being one is unified with its opposite, being for another, and thus only established as something overcome. Another way of putting it is that the object's being for itself is quite as inessential as what alone is supposed to be inessential, the relation to another.
19.
Once again, the same thing has happened here as in sense certainty. In its pure definition features, those that should constitute its essence, the object is overcome just as in the case of its sensuous being. 2From sensuous being it develops into a universal; a universal originating in the sensuous, essentially conditioned by that, and hence in no way self-identical. It is a universal loaded with an antithesis, which therefore has to divide itself into the extremes of singularity and universality, the one of properties and the also of free materials. 3These pure definition features appear to express the essential character itself, but they amount to no more than a being for itself loaded with being for another. The two are essentially joined in a unity, so we now have unconditioned, absolute universality and for the first time consciousness truly enters into the realm of the understanding.
20.
Sensuous singularity disappears in the dialectical motion of immediate certainty and turns into universality, but only of the sensuous kind. 2Meaning, mental intention, disappears and perception takes the object as it is in itself, a universal as such. So singularity emerges bold within it as true singularity, the being in itself of the one, being reflected into itself. 3It remains, however, a conditioned being for itself beside which another being for itself emerges, that of universality opposed to and conditioned by singularity. In fact, these two contradictory extremes exist not merely beside one another, but in a unity. This comes down to the same thing as saying that what is common to both, being for itself, autonomy, is beset by antithesis as such, i.e. it is simultaneously not being for itself. 4The sophistry of perception seeks to rescue these moments from their contradiction and to seize the truth by distinguishing between aspects, by fixing them with also's and inasmuch's and ultimately with the distinction between something inessential and an essence opposed to it. 5Far from warding off deception in the process of reception, these flags and tags turn out themselves to be at best null and void. Indeed, the truth supposedly secured by this logic of perception turns out to be the opposite in one and the same aspect. That's what makes its essence the universality devoid of distinctions and conditions.
21.
Singularity and a universality opposed to it. An essence bound to what is inessential. Something inessential but also necessary. Empty abstractions the lot of them! And these are the powers whose jostling makes up perceiving, often called healthy, common sense, the common understanding. Imagining itself to be sturdy, realistic consciousness, in fact, in perceiving mode common sense never gets beyond the play of these abstractions. It is always most impoverished where it fancies itself richest. 2Buffeted about by these vacuous essences, thrown from one to the other, restless in its sophistry, alternately insisting upon a claim and then the diametrically opposed one, in reality common sense is set firmly against the truth. And this common sense has the gall to deride philosophy for treating of nothing but phantoms of thought! 3Philosophy does indeed treat of things of thought, among others, and recognizes them as pure essences, as absolute elements and powers; but it grasps them in their definition, as determinate, and that's what gives it mastery over them. Understanding in perceiving mode, in contrast, takes them for the truth as such and is misdirected by them from one error to the next. 4That understanding never acquires an awareness of the fact that it is ruled by such simple essences. Believing itself to be constantly dealing with solid stuff and real content, it is basically in the same predicament as sense certainty, which never realizes that the empty abstraction of pure being is its essence. In fact, in all its stuff and content, all this understanding really does is meander around, back and forth, stumbling through these abstractions. They provide cohesion and command of content. They alone are what there is of the sensuous as essence for consciousness, determining relations of the sensuous to consciousness and making up that on which the motion of perception and its truth takes its course. 5This course, constantly alternating between determining the truth and abandoning the result, is part of everyday life, the perennial struggles of perception, moving – as it fancies – within the truth. 6It proceeds, unstoppable, to one and the same result, eventually overcoming all these essential essences and features. At any one point in time it is aware of only one single result as the truth and soon enough of the exact opposite. 7Sensing that both are inessential, consciousness stoops to sophistry to save them from the looming danger, lurching for that as the truth, which just a moment ago it denounced as false. 8The nature of this untrue essence pushes the understanding to bring the abstractions together. Universality and singularity; also and one; essence necessarily bound to something inessential; the inessential that is nevertheless necessary. These abstractions of this non-essence besetting the understanding must be brought together in order to overcome them. Consciousness resists this impulse with crutches like inasmuch and by resorting to the various aspects; or else by taking responsibility for one side in order to separate the other off and establish it as the truth. 9In fact, by their very nature these abstractions come together of their own accord, in and for themselves. 10Healthy understanding is their prey and they push it around through their whirling circles. The understanding wants to assign truth to them. It does so now by taking responsibility for their untruth, now by calling deceptiveness a mark of the unreliability of things. And this while desperately separating what is essential from what is necessary and yet supposedly inessential to them, insisting on the former as their truth against the latter. To no avail, for in all this the understanding does not secure their truth for them, but only untruth for itself.
Contents
I. Sense Certainty ««
»» III. Force and Understanding
All material on this website is copyright © 2007 - 2008 David Healan [email protected]