As Hegel moves from the dialectic of the object to the dialectic of the subject, he explains that what consciousness is now in search of is self-certainty. Consciousness has now become self-conscious and is looking for a way to be certain of itself as an independent being. Hegel explains the only way for consciousness to do this is to become in and for itself for another. By this he basically means that consciousness becomes certain of its own independent will when it is acknowledged as an independent will by something like itself, another consciousness. The point he will ultimately come to (as it’s been revealed by Dr. J) is that the best way for consciousness to achieve this recognition as an independent will is through mutual recognition with another consciousness.
When I examined my impressions of what “mutual recognition” would mean, I was reminded of an idea of God found in Sufism. From what I understand of Sufism, the Sufi perspective on God says that God created man so that through man’s consciousness of God, God might come to know himself. Man’s essential purpose in life is to remember God and become more God-conscious. They achieve this goal through varied means: prayer, mantras, dance, music, and also whirling in some particular orders. When a man is God-conscious, Sufis believe God is able to know himself better through the mind of that man. (If you’d like more information on this Sufi perspective, I’d try here: http://muslim-canada.org/sufi/sufism.htm)
This idea I feel is very relatable to what Hegel was talking about. If we put Sufism in Hegelian terms, God-consciousness created man-consciousness so that he could be recognized by man-consciousness as the God-consciousness and therefore be certain of his own consciousness through man. In other words, God is able to be self-certain of his independent will through mankind’s recognition of him. At this point I will admit that I am not entirely sure this works because of the possibility that God-consciousness and man-consciousness are too different to be able to recognize themselves in each other. I do not know whether it is important for the two consciousnesses to be on the same level in order to recognize their own independences through each other. And I am sure many will object to this idea on the basis that they have no empirical evidence that even provides them with a God to recognize themselves in.
These problems aside, let’s just assume this idea could be realistic, that God’s self-certainty requires mankind’s recognition of him as an independent will. If this is true, then isn’t that almost saying God’s very existence as a self-certain independent being is dependent on mankind believing in God? For centuries man has believed that God’s existence (or non-existence) shapes humanity as independent, intellectual beings. If the recognition idea was true for all consciousnesses, wouldn’t that then suggest that mankind’s existence also shapes God as the being he is?
Nice job! I think that the last paragraph is especially interesting. I hadn't thought of the God idea at all in this particular way. I like that you are questioning whether the recognition process shapes God as well. But the one thing that I might add is that how can we be sure God has a consciousness? I know traditionally he is thought of as a human-type character but how can we be sure? I'm just curious as to how we can be sure that God has a consciousness or if it is just a human thing. Because we can never truly know God how can we be confident in knowing whether or not God has a consciousness? It would be very interesting if that were the case though...
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting comparison. I think it's very interesting to see how different religions view God and in this way, I am inclined to agree that man-consciousness does infact shape the image of God through all sorts of lenses and ideologies. I too wonder if Hegel would say that the two consciousnesses seeking mutual recognition have to be on the same level. Though I can see how we could interpret this point as God-consciousness seeing himself in man, I am unsure how man-consciousness would see himself in God. I think maybe that Hegel would say something along the lines of God being representative of ultimate knowledge. On page 409 of PS, Hegel says that "it is God manifested in the midst of those who know themselves in the form of pure knowledge." so maybe God isn't accessible at all except at the end of all things?
ReplyDeleteI feel like Hegel might have taken a less deistic view, which seems to be what Allie was getting at. A lot of philosophers view "god" not as a being, but a sort of manifestation of philosophical ideals (reason's the big one). So Hegel's "god" would more appropriately be his version of capital-t "Truth," which is the whole dialectic process. I might be speaking out of turn here, but it seems to me that phenomenology precludes a notion of god as an individuated consciousness-to-be-recognized.
ReplyDeleteI'm pulling from Wikipedia for "Phenomenological definition of God" here, so you'll have to excuse my lazy scholarship, but here's a quote from the phenomenologist Michael Henry from his book I Am the Truth. Toward a Philosophy of Christianity: "God is Life, he is the essence of Life, or, if we prefer, the essence of Life is God. Saying this we already know what is God, we know it not by the effect of a learning or of some knowledge, we don’t know it by the thought, on the background of the truth of the world ; we know it and we can know it only in and by the Life itself. We can know it only in God."
If we're going to define god as "the essence of life," we have to understand that a life is not a single point, but the whole damn thing. So we're looking at god as the whole process of consciousness and not a mere instantiation of consciousness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't particularly choose to view god as "the essence of life." Even if god was the "whole process of consciousness" then I'd have to believe god was present all during consciousness' struggles. And if god was present and is "whole" then that almost suggests to me that consciousness needs to merely look at god to find the answer to its conflicts because they are all contained within god's being.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this idea also too closely coincides with Plato's forms. It's as if god is the great form of consciousness and a particular consciousness is just participating in that form. Also, if god is "the essence of life" and the "whole process of consciousness," are you suggesting that life = consciousness? In which case, the consciousness that stakes its life for recognition is really staking its consciousness. This is one part of the master-slave dialectic that I have a big problem grasping. If consciousness is ultimately dependent on life, then it would never be able to separate itself from its connection to life, so it would seemingly have no value in staking its life because it is merely staking its own subjectivity, which is what it's trying to validate.
The version of God Mark's pulling from seems to be an equating of "god" with Hegels' "truth" to me. "God is the whole" instead of "truth is the whole."
ReplyDeleteMichelle - to address your original post, I think it's an interesting conception, certainly, though I wonder what God creating influence would do to the relationship. When Hegel's consciousness is searching for recognition, it's from a separate being, not from something created by it. I think there's a subordination built in there that could hinder the power of man-consciousness's recognition. But I do like the sound of it.