On page 49 in the Introduction, section 78, Hegel says “Natural consciousness will show itself to be only the Notion of knowledge, or in other words, not to be real knowledge at all.” While this seems confusing when first read, how something could have the Notion of knowledge but not real knowledge, we should exam the ideas within the language in order to understand it better. Dr. J explained in class that a Notion, or Begriff, is a complex idea. It has three parts: the universal, the particular, and the individual. The universal is something I think we all understand because we use it in our everyday lives. Because, for instance, we have a universal idea of a book as something made of paper with words inside that have a coherent theme, we are able to identify a book when we see one, no matter what color, size, or subject matter is contained within it. The particular pertains to the particular book that we are currently apprehending or having thoughts about (which right now is the Phenomenology). The individual is a little bit trickier for me. I have come to understand this idea (and correct me if I’m wrong) as being the particular exactly as it is in this moment. Maybe who I am as the individual at this point in my life is different from the individual that I was as my ten-year-old self, but I am still the same particular human being. Thus the individual is developing over time whereas the particular does not? However it is exactly defined, we have come to understand that the Notion is the complete combination of these three ideas, where the particular is the intermediary between the universal and the individual.
The Notion of knowledge then would include the universal idea of knowledge, the particular knowledge, and the individual knowledge. I can only conclude the explanation of this idea to be that knowledge itself is a vague and general idea. To have knowledge at all, it must be of another idea. Simply having knowledge of knowledge cannot go beyond the general idea of knowledge, and this perhaps is why Hegel says the Notion of Knowledge is not real knowledge, because real knowledge is concerned with actually knowing something, it requires a subject to know.
Natural consciousness then, as Hegel says, has not developed true knowledge. I have understood this as the idea of that first, most primitive form of consciousness. Like the analogy we made in class of the child, perhaps natural consciousness is the infant form of consciousness. Hegel continues in the next few lines of paragraph to say that natural consciousness thinks it has real knowledge, but when it comes to the realization of what Notion is, natural consciousness realizes that it is, in fact, wrong. At the point that natural consciousness realizes it does not have real knowledge, Hegel explains that it sinks into despair and has to reconcile its idea of knowledge in order to proceed. From this explanation I have now come to understand that natural consciousness (as the infant) is consciousness unchecked. When natural consciousness faces its first conflict (which is with the Notion), it realizes that is only the infant form. From this, natural consciousness reconciles this conflict and develops into a more sophisticated form of consciousness and proceeds with its inquiries.
Your second paragraph intrigues me. Maybe it is just because I am not very familiar with Hegel, but I am curious about the knowledge of knowledge issue. Or maybe I just need to review the reading from this week. Anyway, I am wondering if there can ever be, according to Hegel, a knowledge of knowledge, or will we simply have to be content with the Notion of knowledge? I guess if real knowledge means actually knowing something then it would really be difficult to say if there can ever really be such a thing as knowledge of knowledge or if it is such a kind of abstract concept (knowledge) that we can only direct it towards subjects and we cannot exactly study knowledge itself. I just think that is an interesting idea and am curious to see if others think that there can ever be such a thing as knowledge of knowledge for the sake or real knowledge, or do most people agree that the Notion of Knowledge is about as far as one can get in his study of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteMaybe "knowledge of knowledge" could in fact be what Hegel considered Kant's quest to be. Because Kant was attempting to understand exactly how it is that we come to know things, separating the "instrument" from the thing it is acting upon, we have to realize that we are still using that instrument to reach a conclusion about the instrument itself. In other words, the instrument is so fundamentally basic to us (because we cannot understand without it), we will never be able to separate that instrument from ourselves. If consciousness has knowledge of some thing, then its "knowledge instrument" is how it comes to know that thing. Therefore in order to know knowing, it engages the very "instrument" that is trying to understand separately of itself, which cannot be done.
ReplyDeleteSo I just wrote a ridiculously long comment pertaining to this post and the stupid website erased it. I am a little peeved about that and thus this comment will most likely not be quite as long.
ReplyDeleteTo preface my comment however I would like to apologize if many of my posts and themes of discussion trail back to eastern philosophy, but I find it fascinating when ideas seem so universal that people on opposite ends of the planet arrive at the same or similar decisions regarding the mind.
My comment is aimed at your first paragraph when you wrote about individuals. This concept of an ever-changing self seems very much like the concept put forth by the non-complex Theravada Buddhist school of thought. The idea that there is an ever-changing self that is always transforming and never quite the same as it was only moments before. The Buddhists claim that this proves that there is no 'self' however Hegel I don't believe would go so far, yet the basic concept is there with both philosophies.
The Buddhists claim that it is human nature to act in a way that is self preserving, and they use this seemingly basic thought to then explain away the idea of a [lasting or permanent] self. They argue that if there was a permanent self then humans, acting in self-interest would always consider the possible outcomes of every situation before carrying it out and would never act in a way that would be harmful to either the 'future-self' or the 'present self.' Thus an act such as smoking cigarettes would never even seem like a rational possibility and no one who was not suicidal would take part in such an activity. But as we all know, for some, the instant gratification accompanied by the smoking of a cigarette is pleasurable enough to disregard the possible damage being done to the 'future-self.'
This idea, having shown its head in both western and eastern philosophy causes one to think that perhaps there is a base of undeniable truth that can not be overlooked. The parallels formed by people who have lived under such vastly different influences can not be denied. I find that truly fascinating.
I like the notion that the conscience has to develop and realize what it does not know. It kind of humanizes the conscience in a way and makes it seem more real. And what is knowledge anyway? A certainty that what you "know" is correct? It seems as though we might need to figure out what knowledge is before we seek it.
ReplyDelete