Description of the dialectics of consciousness in brief
George Cummins IV
Hegel’s dialectic is the major mechanism for stating universals, the highest categories of particles, and is a pathway of formation of the spirit.
Hegel names and classifies all of the experiences of rationalism under terminus universal; he formalized it in the abstract as a lifeless universal. In problems of universals, Hegel is putting forth a viewpoint where particulars stand in dialectical opposition and are aware of one another; no unrecognizable forms like in Plato, not hylomorphism of Aristotle nor nominalistic series of categories. Hegel’s universals are dynamic, based upon development and contradiction, referencing to each particle, which forms the higher category. The mechanism works peculiarly to its own system of a carefully crafted theory about spiritual development of the “universal consciousness.”
Dialectics:
This “existence” and “being”, is abstraction and its negative, which brings itself denying its own self, the negation is similarly immediate aspect, it is “nothing”. By ‘abstracting away,’ the concreteness of actual experience, one is also left with another existence, which is nothing. This process, the process of abstraction is also used by Hegel in phrase “doing away”.
Being and nothing are thus identical, and the truth of being and nothing is the unity of the two, which makes a new concept – the unity is “becoming”. Unity of becoming does not obliterate being and nothing but holds both into a higher truth. This part of the contradiction divides into two modes and unites or overcomes (or even destroys) them, so we can discover the following general triad mentioned below. This method of overcoming contradictions by moving to a higher level is known as the dialectic. Hegel's own special systematic logic is divided from idea inspired by human history – a never-ending development: all-functioning as a support and tool for development of Hegelian vision.
The dialectical system of reality is a foundational triad:
The “other” is an acknowledgment of the self-consciousness of the possibility, but if there is the other, the original self-consciousness feels threaded. Certainly the master supposes to be the subject. It requires absolute freedom and domination, asserts it, and is attempting the domination in mode of a master and servant scenario. Most importantly is a fact that the ensuing struggle results in a master who dominates, and a servant who is dominated. The very master abstracts its forces, but the servant is producing material of goods for the enjoyment of the master.
At this point, master is slowly becoming to be depended upon servant.
1. First, on this place, master depends upon the servant, while the master has been consuming or destructing what servant makes, thus the servant had been learning to create, to bend nature into his own will.
2. Slave is establishing his own self-consciousness and suddenly, the roles are changing according to the texture of the mechanism in ‘phenomenological part’.
Through being in-and-for-itself is existing for abstraction for other consciousness. Just as “something” is recognized from a part of something. The mentioned conception of this unity, now unity of self-consciousness in its duplication of the realizing itself in self-consciousness, is a many-sided and many-sensed complex. It’s carefully set apart or at the same time taken and understood in its differentiation as a distinct and always in its opposed sense.
The double sense of that what is distinguished it lies in the essence of self-consciousness, in many sides and many-sensed complexes. The distinction must be held carefully apart or at the same time taken and understood in its differentiation and possibly kept in mind. The double sense of what is distinguished lies in the essence of self-consciousness, of being infinite – or boundless: that means that immediately the contrary of the determination in which it is established. One self-consciousness for the other is then come outside-itself. We can with a clean mind now continue in basics hierarchy. The two-fold significance of this mode-problem is:
Firstly: It had done with the other, for it does not see the other neither; becomes independent abstraction overcoming mode in order to become certain of itself. And secondly: in doing so it sets out to “do away with itself”, for this other being, is itself. This double sensed “doing away” with its double otherness is equally to double sensed return to itself. Specifically, into itself. The first time through doing away it gets itself back, for it becomes more equal to itself through doing away (act of an abstraction) with its otherness. And here the second part of this duality, is a moment of lack of giving back the other self-consciousness to the latter again, perhaps it had itself for the other – it does away with this being, it has in the other, thus letting the other go free again.
This movement is taking the position of self-consciousness, in its relation to another self-consciousness (doing the one, contains two-fold significance):
2.) Its reaction as a doing away of the other, for the other is no less independent, it's shut up within itself -- nothing in it what is doing itself.
The first self-consciousness does not have the object before as it later to begin with the merely for desire, but an independent object, existing for itself. Thus we can ask a question: “What self-consciousness does it with it?” - Because the movement is thus in all respect the double movement of both of those self-consciousness.
Each sees the other one, do the same as it does, do inasmuch as the other a one-sided doing would thus be unavailing, because what is intended should occur, can be more about only through both.