At 04:22 AM 29/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>SG:
>Does this outline more or less capture your description?
The sequence in which Hegel treats the various propositions, judgments and
syllogisms I have not paid too much attention to. Consult Science of Logic
if you want to get that right.
>***********************
>SG:
>Paraphrasing, this passage seems to me to mean that syllogisms by their
>nature are fallacious and miss the Notion. As a Notion develops, it
>overcomes (refutes, sublates), and then incorporates these syllogisms. Is
>this paraphrase in the ballpark, and what is Hegel's point here?
The point is that every syllogism contains a moment of truth. Some of the
syllogisms that Hegel "refutes" are patently absurd, when presented as they
are in purely logical terms, but still contain a moment of truth, but, as
you say, they miss the Notion and are overcome in the development of the
Notion. Hegel claims that his logical presentation reveals the movement of
Spirit. In non-metaphysical terms, Notions concretise themselves in their
development in culture and history in this way. This can be seen as the
relative truth of various "maxims", as the development of specific social
relations, and the deepening of the idea itself.
>SG:
>12 combinations ... hmmm ...
>
>P mediating from U to I
>P mediating from I to U
>U mediating from P to I
>U mediating from I to P
>I mediating from U to P
>I mediating from P to U
>
>What are the other 6 combinations?
Without picking up the book (or the Hegel-by-HyperText site) you also have
things like U-U-U or I-U-I so there are altogether 27 possible combinations!
>All the aspects found in the Subjective Notion are "maxims" about the
>relation between Universals, Particulars and Individuals, which prove to
>"fall short of the Notion".
>
>*********************
>SG:
>I take this to mean that Hegel uses the term "maxim" to refer to
>statements about the three aspects (aspects of the Notion in the
>Abstract), the relations between these aspects (Judgments) and the
>mediations between them (Syllogisms) - all statements that under close
>examination "fall short of the Notion" itself. Is this about right?
>********************
Yes. So for instance when someone says "A union is only its members" this
maxim misses the Universal in one interpretation or the Particular in
another, just as "Members of National Council are mandated delegates from
Branches misses the individual. Or "The Executive speaks for the Union as a
whole" or "I represent my branch at Council". "The branch is obliged to
follow union policy". etc., etc., all have a Judgment or Syllogistic
structure and all represent just one aspect of the multiplicity of
relations in a union. A study of the concept of "solidarity" would reveal
all these same aspects. A study of the relevant aspects of a person's
activity and consciousness would also reveal the same complex of relations.
>By using these kind of ideas, it is possible to deal with how "universals"
>exist in institutions, in people's minds and activities, and in linguistic
>or symbolic forms.
>
>********************
>SG:
>Would it make sense to say this same sentence but add the other two
>aspects? As in "By using these kind of ideas, it is possible to deal with
>how" - [here add] "individuals", "particulars" and -"universals" exist in
>institutions, in people's minds and activities, and in linguistic or
>symbolic forms."
>***********************
Yes. All the different combinations. Hegel's first concern (see his "The
German Constitution" written before any of his philosophical works) was the
concept of the State, a practical question in the fragmented and
politically backward Germany of his day, in the wake of the horrors of the
French Revolution. How could people recognise their own will in the state
and its laws? This involved designing a constitution which dealt with all
these relations.
>The concept is not any one of these forms of existence, but in the whole
>mass of relations between them, which are in fact, not just at one single
>set of three levels, but at a myriad of concatenated levels.
>
>*********************
>SG:
>Where does the "concept" fit in the development of the Notion?
Although some people use the word "concept" differently from "Notion" or
Begriff, I am happy to say that Notion means concept, with the
qualification that some concepts are barren and abstract. By "Notion" Hegel
means a concept worthy of the name. A "union" which people joined by
putting a cheque in the post provided they were in the appropriate category
of employment would be a union (like the National Association of Retirees)
but only an abstract one, since all the facets that go to make a "real"
union are lacking. It would be just an "abstraction", like a circle in a
Venn diagram.
>I so appreciate your explanations of Hegel on the Notion, Andy, please
>continue!
>
>- Steve
Thanks
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST