Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Under Polarity Hegel further settles accounts with the surd of contingency, not
however in typical rationalist fashion but with profound rationality in the old
metaphysical tradition (pre-Cartesian, but now integrating it with the defining
Cartesian insight, the cogito). He introduces Polarity as if taking it from physics,
where in his time it was “so dominant”, where it “contains by implication the
more correct definition of Opposition” , of which he has just been speaking as
itself opposed to Identity and yet as just in that way intrinsically necessary to it or
as it were within it. Physics, however, “adheres to the ordinary logic”. We might
say that today our quantum physicists both adhere and do not adhere to this,
meaning, for my part, that an admission of Hegelian perspectives would help
them achieve consistency. The same might then be said concerning the need to,
so to say, “save” the enormous intellectual investments made in the post-
Fregean analytical movement, in symbolic logic along with set-theory and, more
and more, mereology. Now, as then, physics “might... well be horrified”.
Hegel, however, picks up the new stress on Polarity and applies it fruitfully to his
logical investigation, or study rather, of identity and opposition, positive and
negative, within “the doctrine of Essence”. A similar departure might today be
made, without being merely whimsical, starting from the Big Bang theory. This
has been developed from observations, via the Doppler effect and associated
phenomena, indicating an expanding universe. No one seems to have fastened
upon a Role of the Observer here, similar after all to that studied in quantum
physics. Thus the idea of a uniform expansion outwards presupposes the
viewpoint of the one observing it. He has to stand at the centre, otherwise he just
moves with the rest. This remains true, even if cosmologists allow for the
movement “outwards” of our own galaxy as well. Everything cannot just be
moving away from everything else, since in leaving A you approach B, while if B
is leaving you too then it must be coming up against C leaving D and so on and
so. There is a central point with which the conception identifies, wherever it may
be. Our thinking identifies with it. This theory, then, is covertly or unconsciously
Idealist, with the Big Bang standing for the Absoluteness of the Subject, of
Subjectivity. We are thinking ourselves, under these images. That the Big Bang is
not proposed literally is obvious. First, there would be no ears to hear the Bang.
Second, as a temporal occurrence it must have a before and a before and a
before, at best in circular format. A temporal and spatial occurrence cannot itself
bring about space and time. Therefore I suggest a covert idealism, functioning at
a deep level of the intelligence. Contradictions within evolutionary theory
suggest something similar there, but that would take us too far from the present
commentary.
Hegel cites debts and assets, east and west, to show that “positive and negative
are intrinsically conditioned by one another” as, ultimately, since he takes up
contradiction, the true by the false, the false by the true and, indeed, that which
is by that which is not. This might indeed seem a logical Manicheism and the
imposition of it upon reality, moreover. Where then will be the absolute necessity
(in perfect freedom) of the Notion? We shall see. “God is light and in him is no
darkness at all”. Nevertheless, in the same scriptures a victory of light over
darkness is eternally celebrated. Similarly, in Hegelian philosophy, the Notion is
intrinsically result, necessarily resulting from the finite, i.e., Hegel is explicit, from
the false. “Everything finite is false.” This indeed is much more than a “victory”,
which is a mere image taken from contingent representations. “Result” is not
thus understood, whatever etymologies of leaping etc. someone might care to
dig up. They are dead and forgotten. The Ricoeurian studies of language as
metaphor, that is, abstract from our linguistic intentions. Language never
constrains us to say what we do not intend to say, even though Hegel himself
teaches, referring to the “I” (20), that through it we say more than we “merely
mean” (as John makes Caiaphas unknowingly prophecy when he says “It is
expedient that one man die for the people”. This too, along with similar Biblical
stories, e.g. of Balaam, belongs to the complex ancestry of Hegel’s thesis of “the
cunning of reason”). “I”, that is, never did mean anything other than the
universality. In it “we have thought before us in its utter purity” (24, Zus.). For
Hegel, this “I” is not, as with Kant, “the mere act of our personal self-
consciousness”. Or, rather, it is this, but no longer as “mere”, or using “self” in a
restrictive way. The absolute unity thus introduced into the variety of sense,
thinking still of Kant, and not merely that, “this identity is the absolute”, in us as
we are in it, but “at the end of the day”, as it were (42, Zus.). It is intrinsic to the
Notion not only to think exclusively itself, to the point, however, that this act
which it is belongs exclusively to itself. Such exclusivity, however, includes all
from which it results, which returns us to Contradiction.
“Everything finite is false”! But only when taken in separation from the absolute,
the Notion, “in whom we live and move and have our being”, declared St. Paul in
prophetic mode. This is an imperfect form of the true Content, according to Hegel
(last section of Philosophy of Mind, “Absolute Mind”), even though “who” seems
superior to “which”, as (the latter) more immediately or merely linguistically
appropriate to the expression “the notion”. One cannot hang much upon this,
however, if one is prepared to speak, with Aristotle, of “thought thinking itself”
or, in Christian terms, of a Word that “dwelt among us”. Personality itself is only
called “whom” so as to distinguish it from “which”, so if everything is “who” this
“who” is then equivalently covered by “which”, linguistically. This is another
example of the infinite absorbing the finite and not being, impossibly,
contradistinguished against it.
In opposition, the different is not confronted by any other, but by its other. Here
Hegel sees what we may call the bond of contradiction, “the very moving
principle of the world”. This is all the more so in that “the aim of philosophy is to
banish indifference, and to ascertain the necessity of things.” This programme of
course necessitates a “deconstruction” of at least some notions of contingency,
as Aristotle carried out for “chance” in the Physics. We get it later on in this
“doctrine of Essence”. “Indifference” here carries us back to Identity and
Difference, to be buried, banished and absorbed in the Ground (as succeeding
category). What really is a category? It is where we so to say “accuse”
(kategoros) the irresistible, try to make it stop. We cannot. It is illusion. The river,
thought, has flowed on in the very attempt, as music, qua music, “is fled”.
Philosophical language thus conducts itself as between waking and sleeping, in
comparison with the attentive mind. So language, this medium, is indeed treated
by Hegel as phenomenal, in the semiotic section of the Encyclopaedia and
elsewhere. He thus comments upon his own activity while doing it. Nothing
though forbids us to do this.
We should stop trying to think that “Of course something else is also possible”, of
a “what would have happened”. All “true thinking... is a thinking of necessity”.
Counter-examples spring to mind and one needs to expend effort to discover, if it
is not already clear, what Hegel means here. He explains it in terms of
contradiction as “moving principle”, the other always standing over against its
other, as in “self and world”, we might say, which yet is it. Hegel insists here that
we cannot either retain “mere variety... as a valid category side by side with
opposition”, as he thinks the physicists do. He refers in illustration to
contemporary dithering, as distinct from the disagreements which also then
existed, about colour theory. Could there be black without white? Or grey without
either of them?
Part (2) of this Zusatz has obscurities, I find. “Whatever exists is concrete, with
difference and opposition in itself.” In itself! This is the truth behind the abstract
“Either-or” maintained by the understanding. This, as finite, is false and must be
“absorbed” in the fuller truth of Reason just cited. There exists no such
alternative “in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature.”
The two pairs form an interesting equivalence. Mind is already “heaven”, as
Hegel indeed repeatedly indicates, calling it, viz. thinking, Blessedness, at the
climax of this doctrine of Essence. But “heaven” of course, while capturing the
Content, belongs to the imperfect form of Religion. When Hegel, anyhow, goes on
to speak of the finitude of “things” he is not referring to “whatever exists” as just
mentioned. This is the “concrete”. They have a “want of correspondence
between their immediate being, and what they essentially are.”
Hegel’s example of the acid base is not easily graspable. The point though is that
it “is not something that persists quietly”, as “itself and not another thing”. Its
“only being consists in its relation to its other.” “Its” is the point. It is becoming
what it is not, in an “effort to realise what it potentially is”. Why effort? Well, the
effort is not ours, finally, not the acid’s. It belongs to the “moving principle”, the
saying against, the “not this” which drives the dialectic to its antecedent and
originating result, at once cause and effect and so neither of these. Yet it
“cancels itself”, not so as to leave “abstract identity”. Rather, the “proximate
result of opposition (when realised as contradiction) is the Ground.” This is what
we must now look into.
**********************************************’
Contrariety then has two forms. The Positive is the aforesaid various
(different) which is understood to be independent, and yet at the
same time not to be unaffected by its relation to its other. The
Negative is to be, no less independently, negative self-relating, self-
subsistent, and yet at the same time as Negative must on every point
have this its self-relation, i.e. its Positive, only in the other.
“Both Positive and Negative are therefore explicit contradiction; both are
potentially the same.” This, one might say, is the absolutisation of Reconciliation
to a point where it is no longer able to be made an object of thought. The
adversary is disarmed in his very opposition, as it were laughed at (“The notion is
pure play”). Hegel adds, in a curious formulation, “Both are so actually also.”
That is, I take it, they are both equally Actuality. Either “is the abrogation of the
other and of itself”. The dualist world of affirmation and negation is self-
abrogating. This, again, agrees with the later affirmation(!) that judgment or
predication finds no place in the final perspective of the Notion. In the traditional
logic, indeed, notion or concept (in apprehension simplex) precisely precedes the
making of judgments (second operation of intellect or reason).
“Thus they fall to the Ground.” He adds “Or”, oder, as if explaining (not to say
clarifying), “the essential difference, as a difference, is only the difference of it
from itself, and thus contains the identical”. The “it” refers to difference again. So
difference contains the identical, i.e. it is not difference, absolutely speaking. The
other is the same. Hegel reaches complete agreement with the judgement,
passed from the absolute viewpoint upon any finite “quality”, “thing”, whatever,
“This also is thou, neither is this thou”, where “thou” addresses the Absolute as it
were personally. This is but in agreement with his general programme, if we have
followed him so far. Difference is only a difference of a thing from itself, in which
case the other type, variety, cannot arise in the first place but is essentially
otiose. The contradiction, the opposition, goes deeper than the everyday can
allow. Hegel outdoes Hume at his own game, so to say, except that it is not a
game but an ascent away from the finite which, as we said, it kicks away or,
simply, annihilates or consumes, absorbs. Simple negation is revealed as abstract
merely, even if our everyday language will doubtless continue as it is, if we insist
on speaking.
**********************************************************
Self-relation of finite things, along with both Identity and Being as immediate, is
the same basic abstraction and hence false (113). The acid does not remain an
acid as it goes up into the compound, though thus realising its native potential.
Thus “contradiction is the very moving principle of the world.” The world is thus
contradiction. It is not what is, but is the Notion finally which Essence is on the
way to, so to say, representing. For it is not it, nor does it really “become”, since
it is still formal. In truth, nothing becomes, there is no Becoming. In eternity,
which is the Absolute, which is Idea, we perceive ourselves, or whatever such
selves finally are. We even perceive ourselves misperceiving ourselves in what,
like the acid, has gone up, as a moment, into the whole or, rather, into the
Notion. Being itself is replaced by Necessity, by, that is to say, full Possibility, of
all contraries.
Essence has “reflected being, a being in which another shows, and which shows
in another. And so it is also the sphere in which the contradiction, still implicit in
the sphere of Being, is made explicit.” The Becoming of the “doctrine of Being” is
here “represented by the Ground of determinate being”. This Ground, we have
seen, is Essence. It is, like all the categories in fact, a kind of formal pre-play of
the eventual Notion as entire reality, but more clearly so. We have pursued it
through the lenses of identity and Difference. It is, so to say, the substrate of
infinite possibility which is indeed Sufficient Reason for all, is Reason itself, able
to endure its own demise while yet thinking this very demise. “Everything has its
Sufficient Ground” (121). According to my English version Hegel gives both these
words (originally in French or Latin) the capital letters of nomina, an explicit or
explicitly implicit reference to Leibniz.
But if he is following Leibniz he interprets him by selecting the one word Grund,
which has two sides rather than being ambiguous. Leibniz with “sufficient
reason” seems closer to nous setting all in order (Anaxagoras). Grund, being
purely formal, does not yet set anything in order. It is both the reason for things
and the actual, or factual, foundation. Hegel points out, somewhat impatiently
perhaps, that a reason exists (and can be given) for anything. Omnis agens agit
propter finem, be he thief or deserter (121, Zus.). More generally, electricity is
the “ground” for electrical phenomena. This is to give “the formal difference of
mediation”, adding nothing, but yet translating “into the form of inwardness”.
What is inwardness here, we might want to ask?
One notes that in English we ask for “grounds” of a statement but never for “the
ground” (though one might occasionally hear “On what ground?”). We speak of
grounding a proposition.