B. Self-Consciousness
IV. Truth of Self-Certainty
A. Independence and dependence of self-consciousness – lordship and bondage
[1. Double meanings]
1.
Self-consciousness is in and for itself by and through being that for another; i.e. it is only in being recognized, acknowledged. 2The concept of this its unity in its doubling, the infinity realizing itself in self-consciousness, is a multifaceted folding and interleaving of varied semantics. Its moments will to some extent have to be clearly held apart, but to some extent they will not be distinguished at all within this differentiation, or else they will have to be taken and recognized solely in the opposite senses of those drawn in the distinctions. 3The bivalent semantics of what is differentiated lies in the essence of self-consciousness, in its infinity, being immediately the opposite of whatever it is characterized or defined as [III. Force and Understanding §32.1]. 4Dismantling the concept of this spiritual/mental unity in its doubling gives us the motion of the process of recognition, acknowledgement.
2.
For self-consciousness there now exists another self-consciousness. It has come out of itself. 2This has a double meaning: first, it has literally lost itself, for it finds itself as another essence, another living being, distinct from itself; second, it has thereby overcome the other, for it does not see the other as an essence, a living being, but rather itself in that other.
3.
It must overcome its own otherness by overcoming the first double meaning, which produces a second double meaning. First, it must proceed to overcome the other autonomous essence in order to achieve certainty of itself as essence. Second, this also involves overcoming itself, for this other is itself.
4.
This bivalent overcoming of its bivalent otherness is also a bivalent return into itself. This way it gets itself back, for overcoming its otherness re-establishes its identity with itself. Also, that same overcoming gives the other self-consciousness back to itself. For the first self-consciousness was itself in the other, it overcomes this, its being in the other, and thereby sets the other self-consciousness free again.
5.
Here we are still imagining this motion of self-consciousness in the relationship to another self-consciousness in terms of the action of the former, action of the one. This action, however, also has the double significance of being action of the one as well as action of the other, for the other is just as autonomous, self-contained, and there is nothing in it for which it is not responsible. 2The first one does not have the object before it merely as in the first phase of the object of desire; now it is an autonomous being for itself, which makes it impossible for him, the first self-consciousness, to do anything to the other for his own purposes unless the other does precisely that to himself. 3The motion is thus simply the doubled one of both self-consciousnesses. 4Each sees the other doing exactly what he does; each does himself what he demands from the other; and for that reason does what he does only to the extent that the other does it too. One-sided action would be useless, because only both can make happen what should happen.
6.
Action here is thus not only laden with double significance in the sense that it is action directed at the first self-consciousness as much as at the other; but also in the sense that it is inseparably the action simultaneously of the one and of the other.
[2. Power syllogism]
7.
Once again, we recognize our old friend the play of forces [III. Force and Understanding §8 f.], only now in consciousness. 2What happened in the former process for us happens here for the extremes themselves. 3The midpoint is self-consciousness which divides itself into the extremes and each extreme is that exchange of characteristics and absolute transition into its opposite number. 4Now, being consciousness, it certainly comes outside itself; although, in being outside itself it is also simultaneously held back within itself, for itself; while that which is of itself outside it is for that. 5The situation is now that for it, it is immediately other consciousness and at the same time not so. Similarly, this other is only for itself in overcoming itself as given being for itself, only in the being for itself of its other can it be for itself. 6Each is the midpoint for the other through which each mediates and binds itself with itself. Each is for each other immediately essence for itself and that only through this mediation. 7They acknowledge each other as mutually acknowledging each other.
8.
We shall now consider this pure concept of recognition, the doubling of self-consciousness in its unity, to see how its process appears to self-consciousness. 2That process will initially reveal the inequality of the two sides, i.e. the midpoint's move out of itself into the extremes that sets those extremes against each other such that only one gives recognition and only one receives it [§12.3 ff. below M].
9.
Self-consciousness is initially simple being for itself, self-identical through exclusion of everything else from it. Its essence and absolute object is the ego, I, and in this immediacy, or being, of its being for itself, it is singularity, individual. 2Anything else is for it merely inessential, objects marked with the character of the negative. 3But wait! The other is also a self-consciousness. One individual confronts another individual. 4Immediately confronting each other, however, they do so in the manner of common objects. They are independent structures, consciousnesses immersed in the being of life; for the given object has defined itself as life here. As such, they have not yet accomplished for each other the motion of absolute abstraction, that of destroying all immediate being leaving only the purely negative being of self-identical consciousness. They have not yet demonstrated to each other that they are pure being for itself, self-consciousness. 5Each is certain of itself, but not of the other. That's why each's certainty of itself still lacks truth. For his truth could only be that the individual's own being for itself demonstrates itself to him to be an independent object or – what is the same thing – that the object demonstrates that it is this pure certainty of itself. 6According to the concept of recognition, however, this is not possible unless the other for him, just as he for the other, accomplishes this pure abstraction of being for itself, each in itself through its own action and simultaneously through the action of the other.
10.
Demonstrating itself to be the pure abstraction of self-consciousness, however, consists in showing itself to be pure negation of its objective mode, that is to show itself not bound to any definite existence, definitely not to the universal singularity of existence; indeed, not bound to life at all. 2This demonstration is double action; action by the other simultaneous with action by the first one. 3As the other's action then, both aim at the death of its other. 4The second factor, its own action, is also present, for that action by the other includes the first one putting his own life on the line. 5The relationship between the two self-consciousnesses is so determined that each individually and both together prove themselves through a struggle for life and death.
– 6They must enter this struggle. Each must raise his certainty of himself, namely of being for himself, to truth in the other and in himself. 7Risking their lives is the only way freedom is won. Putting their lives on the line is the only way to prove that the essence for self-consciousness is no mere state of being, not the immediate condition in which it emerges, not its immersion in the full expanse of life. This is the only way to prove that nothing is present in self-consciousness which is not a vanishing moment for it; that self-consciousness is pure being for itself. 8An individual who has not risked his life can certainly be recognized as a person [VI.A.c. Legal status §1.2]; but he has not arrived at the truth of this recognition as that of an autonomous self-consciousness. 9Each must aim for the death of the other, just as he lays his own life on the line. For the other is worth no more to him than he to himself. His essence presents itself to him as something other outside him [§7.4 above], a condition he must overcome. The other is given consciousness entangled in various relationships. It must see its otherness as pure being for itself or as absolute negation.
11.
Absurdly, this death test overcomes both truth and certainty. It destroys the truth that was supposed to be gained from it along with all possibility of self-certainty. Life is the natural affirmation of consciousness, autonomy without absolute negativity, just as death is its natural negation, a negation without autonomy, which thus remains devoid of the sought after significance of recognition. 2Death of either party at least makes it certain that both really did risk their lives and that they treated it with contempt, both their own and the other's. The problem is that this does not really hold for survivors. 3They overcome their consciousness set in this alien essence, natural existence, i.e. they overcome themselves and are overcome as the extremes that each wants to be for itself. 4But this erases from their play of exchanges the essential moment, that of the division into extremes of mutually opposed characteristics. The midpoint collapses into a dead unity, decomposed into dead, merely given and not opposed, extremes. Now the two do not give and take back each other through consciousness, but set each other free indifferently, as things. 5Their action is abstract negation, not the negation of consciousness that overcomes by preserving and maintaining what has been negated thus ensuring that it survives its own destruction [II. Perception §3.3].
12.
Self-consciousness learns through this experience that life is just as essential to it as pure self-consciousness. 2In immediate self-consciousness the simple ego, I, is the absolute object, which, however, for us or in itself is absolute mediation with persistent autonomy as its essential moment. 3The dissolution of that simple unity is the result of this first experience. It leaves a pure self-consciousness, but also another consciousness that is not purely for itself but only for another, i.e. as a given consciousness, one in the form of thinghood. 4Both are essential. Since they are initially unequal and opposed and their reflection into unity has not yet emerged, at this stage they are just two opposed forms of consciousness. One is independent, being for itself is its essence, while the other is now the dependent one, for whom life as being for another is the essence. The one is lord, the other bondsman, serf.[3. Truth of self-certainty]
13.
The lord is consciousness existing for itself, but no longer merely the concept of that. He is now consciousness existing for itself mediated with itself through another consciousness, namely through one whose essence includes its synthesis with independent being or mere thinghood as such. 2The lord relates to both of these moments; to a thing as such, that object of desire, and to a consciousness in which thinghood is the essential factor. The lord is a) the immediate relation of being for itself as concept of self-consciousness but b) from now on also simultaneously as mediation. The lord is a being for itself who is only for itself through an other. He relates a) immediately to both and b) mediately to each through the other. 3The lord relates to his bondsman mediately through independent being, for this is the condition in which the serf is fixed. Independent being is the chain the serf could not abstract himself from in the struggle, demonstrating his dependence in possessing only the independence of mere thinghood. 4The lord, however, is the power over this chain of independent being. For in the struggle, the lord demonstrated that to him it is merely negative. The lord is the power over this being, which itself is the power over the other, so in this syllogism the lord has the other under him. 5Similarly, the lord relates mediately through the serf to the thing. The bondsman, self-consciousness as such, relates to the thing negatively too and overcomes it. Still, the thing remains independent of the serf and his negating is an activity that cannot go all the way to complete destruction. His negating, processing activity on the thing is no more than work, labour. 6Through this mediation the lord, in contrast, develops an immediate relation to the thing, one of pure negation. The serf works the thing, the lord enjoys it. 7The lord can satisfy himself completely in this way; a gratification that eluded desire [IV. Self-Consciousness §2.10 f.; §5.2 above and §18 below]. Desire was frustrated in this endeavour by the thing's independence. Placing the serf between himself and the thing, the lord forms his bond solely to the dependence of the thing and has the pure enjoyment of it. The thing's independence he leaves to the serf, who works on it.
14.
In these two moments the lord receives his recognition through another consciousness asserting itself to be inessential in them; first, in the work on the thing and second, in dependence on a definite existence. In neither case can the serf master being and achieve absolute negation. 2Thus, the moment of recognition is present here in that the other consciousness overcomes its own being for itself, thereby doing to itself what the lord does to it. 3Then there's the other moment too: this action of the serf is the lord's own action. What the serf does is in reality to perform the action of the lord. For the lord being for itself, essence, is all there is. He is the pure negative power, for which the thing is nothing; he is the pure essential action in this scenario, in which, however, the serf is not pure, but only inessential, action. 4Unfortunately, there's something missing. For this to be genuine recognition what the lord does to the other, the serf, he would also have to do to himself and what the serf does to himself, he would have to do to his other, the lord. Recognition here is but one-sided and unequal.
15.
The inessential consciousness in this is the object for the lord that constitutes the truth of his self-certainty. 2It is, however, clear that this object does not agree with its concept. Rather, that in which the lord fulfills himself turns out to be for him a far cry from an independent consciousness. 3What he has now is rather a dependent consciousness. He is thus not certain of being for itself as the truth, rather his truth is an inessential consciousness and its inessential action.
16.
The truth of independent consciousness is then the servile consciousness. 2This appears at first outside itself and not as the truth of self-consciousness. 3But, as lordship demonstrated that its essence is the reverse of what it wants to be, similarly in its consummation, servitude turns into the opposite of what it is immediately; it withdraws into itself as compressed consciousness and inverts itself into true independence.
[4. Negative midpoint: labour]
17.
We have looked at servitude so far only in the scenario of lordship. 2But it is self-consciousness and as such we have to consider what servitude is in and for itself. 3At first, the lord is the essence for the serf. Independent consciousness for itself is the truth for servitude, which, however, for it has not yet been internalized; independent consciousness for itself is not yet implicit to servitude. 4One thing's for sure, the serf has this truth of pure negativity and being for itself inside him, because he has experienced this essence within himself. 5This consciousness feared not just this or that and not just now and then, rather it feared for its whole essence; it has indeed tasted the fear of death, the absolute lord. 6Internally, this means complete dissolution, every fibre of his being quaking with dread, everything fixed within shaken to the roots. 7This pure universal motion, everything solid and enduring turned into absolute flux, is the simple essence of self-consciousness, absolute negativity, pure being for itself, which is now a part of this consciousness. 8More, this moment of pure being for itself is for it too since it is his object in the lord. 9There is nothing merely theoretical about this; in service the serf really consummates this universal dissolution. Servile consciousness overcomes its dependence on natural existence in every single moment and works it away.
18.
The feeling of absolute power, however, in general and in the particular case of service, is but dissolution in itself; and while fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, the consciousness beset by that fear is consciousness for itself, but not being for itself. 2In labour it comes to itself. 3In the moment corresponding to desire in the consciousness of the lord [IV. Self-Consciousness §2.10 f.; §5.2 and §13 above], it appeared that the inessential relation to the thing fell to servile consciousness, for the thing maintained its independence therein. 4Desire kept the pure process of negating the object to itself in order to enjoy the unalloyed feeling of self. 5Unfortunately, this satisfaction is highly transient, lacking objectivity, persistence. 6Labour, in contrast, is repressed desire, arrested transience; work shapes, forms, constructs. 7The negative relation to the object becomes its form, and a persistent one at that, because the object has independence for the working man. 8This negative midpoint, formative action, is also the singularity, individuality, the pure being for itself of consciousness, which now, in work, steps outside itself into the element of persistence and this is how working consciousness comes to see itself in independent being.
19.
The formative activity of labour does not only have the positive significance of enabling servile consciousness to see itself as something given, existing, namely pure being for itself; it also has a negative significance responding to its first moment, fear. 2For his own negativity, his being for itself, in constructing the thing only becomes his own object by overcoming the existing form opposing it. 3However, this objective negative is precisely the alien essence that made him quake in fear. 4Now indeed his own negativity destroys this alien negative, asserts itself as such a negative in the element of persistence and thereby becomes for itself, a being existing for itself. 5In the lord, being for itself is alien to servile consciousness, exclusively for itself. In the fear, being for itself is inherent to servile consciousness. In the labour, being for itself becomes its own and servile consciousness at last becomes aware that here it is itself in and for itself. 6Despite being externalized, placed outside it, the form does not become something other to servile consciousness, for form is precisely its pure being for itself, which is what makes it the truth of labour. 7Despite appearing to serve an alien purpose, it is precisely his own rediscovery of himself in labour that makes the serf his own purpose.
– 8Along with formative work, the moments of fear and service as such are necessary to this reflection, and both in universal mode. 9Without the discipline of service and obedience, fear remains formal and does not thoroughly permeate the conscious, actual reality of existence. 10Without that formative activity, fear remains internal and dumb; consciousness does not become for itself. 11If consciousness engages in such work without that first absolute fear, then it is merely a personal purpose, a matter of vanity; its form or negativity is not negativity in itself and so formative activity here cannot give him a consciousness of himself as essence. 12If he has not endured absolute fear, but only a certain amount of anxiety, then negative essence remains external to him; his substance is not infected with fear in all its interstices. 13In this scenario, not all the contents of his natural consciousness have been shaken into instability, so he still remains inherently confined to determinate being; his own purpose is self-will, obstinacy, a freedom that remains confined within servitude. 14Now pure form can hardly become essence to him, and how much less so can form be dispersed throughout the individual becoming a general formation, absolute concept. Form here is no more than a dexterity exercising its power over some things, but not universal power over the whole of objective essence.
|
Contents | ||||
| IV. Self-Consciousness | «« | »» | IV. B. Freedom of self-consciousness – stoicism, scepticism and the unhappy consciousness | |
««
home»»
All material on this website is copyright © 2007 - 2008 David Healan [email protected]