Hegel's Doctrine of the Notion, and in particular the third section of the
Subjective Notion, on the Syllogism, must be one of the most difficult
pieces of reading ever written, but very profound and important. If you're
interested, I can try to explain what he's doing here.
To explain anything in Hegel's works you have to draw attention to which
particular point in his system you are talking about. So, the Notion is
preceded by Being and Essence, which constitute the genesis of the Notion.
The Subjective Notion is the first part of the Notion, in which the Notion
is in itself, and is followed by the Objective Notion and the Idea. The
three parts of the Subjection Notion are the Abstract Notion, the Judgment
and the Syllogism. In the Abstract Notion, Hegel introduces its three
aspects, the Individual, the Particular and the Universal. In the
Individual the concept exists in the form of an individual, for example a
person. In the Particular, the Notion exists as a category or class. In the
Universal, the Notion exists as such. The Judgment deals with the relation
of Individual to Particular, Particular to Universal and so on. The
syllogism deals with the three-way relations between Individual, Particular
and Universal, that is, the various ways in which I, U or P mediate between
any two of I, U and P.
Clear on that?
OK. That was difficult enough. I don't think I can go any further without
resorting to examples. Hegel uses very obscure explications of the various
syllogisms which result from the various three-way relations between I, U
and P, and his refutation of them to show that each proposition is
fallacious, that is to say, misses the Notion. The idea is that in order to
fully develop a Notion must incorporate all the syllogisms which are
successively overcome (refuted, sublated) by its development. So, we need
some examples.
Being a trade unionist, I find it easiest to understand all this by
exploring the concept of "unionism" or "solidarity" which I know very well
and concretely, so that's the example I will use. I think "science" or
"learning" are concepts which are sufficiently concrete to be able to
demonstrate Hegel's insight equally well.
At one level we have an individual union member, a particular branch (a
"local" in American, but equally it could be a union or division etc) and
the union itself (or the entire union movement or "unionism", a true
universal). Hegel goes through 12 different syllogisms. That is, he looks
at 12 different combinations of I, U and P mediating between each other. So
for example, when a branch represents the union to an individual we have
the Particular mediating from Universal to Individual. When an Individual
represents the Union in, for example, visiting a branch and arguing for
union policy, Individual mediates between U and P. When a branch makes
representations for an individual to the union leadership for example, we
have Particular mediating from Individual to Universal. The drift of the
way Hegel deal with each mediation is to show that each has a truth, but
proves to be one-sided. So for example the Branch which insists to a member
that only the branch is able to represent the member's concerns to the
union leadership, this misses the fact that the individual, as a worker has
their own relation to unionism, and rights under rules as a union member,
and may choose to go to the union leadership and seek support to overthrow
the branch leadership or change branch policy and so on.
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".
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. 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.
Andy
At 02:57 AM 28/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Shifting to Hegel ...
>
>Victor, just to provoke some discussion - I would love it if you and Andy
>would share more of your insights on relating Hegel to activity theory,
>cultural psychology and the levels of social analysis we have been
>discussing - may I comment (ever so slightly provocatively) that from my
>limited reading of Hegel, and from just thumbing through my copies of
>Hegel's "shorter Logic" and "longer Logic" (I learned these shorthand
>terms from reading some of Andy's extensive and marvelous work on Hegel, a
>study project I plan to return to) - perhaps it can also be said that
>Hegel, insofar as he was formulating a social psychology, was not only
>"contextualizing logic in social relations," he was also contextualizing
>social relations in logic. One of the key themes Hegel analyzes in the
>sections on the Doctrine of Notion, for example, is the syllogism. As for
>your intriguing comment about micro and macro levels of social analysis,
>how do you see Hegel's logic as providing the link between them?
>
>Andy - if you would be so kind as to share some of your thoughts on this -
>what details do you see in Hegel's Doctrine of the Notion that you believe
>show "how social formations mediate the relations between individual
>consciousness and universal consciousness"? And did Leontiev specifically
>evoke Hegel's writing in his work?
>
>Best,
>- Steve
>
>
>At 04:59 PM 10/26/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>Andy,
>>Right on. By contextualizing logic in social relations Hegel is actually
>>formulating a social psychology - and, in doing so, provides the link
>>between micro and macro levels of social analysis.
>>Victor
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>Andy Blunden
>>To: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:11 PM
>>Subject: Re: timescale question
>>The way I see it, remembering all the time that internalisation is a
>>creative process of appropriation, which never *simply* copies or
>>reproduces the external, all our concepts are internalisations *of*
>>social relations. I think Leontyev did a great job of explaining this
>>idea, for me, in his Activity, Consciousness, and Personality
>>http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm. Activity,
>>tools, language, social institutions, scientific works, laws, art, etc.,
>>etc., mediate between individual forms of consciousness and social
>>formations. There are millions upon millions of examples so it's hardly
>>worth starting. Hegel's Doctrine of the Notion shows in detail how social
>>formations mediate the relations between individual consciousness and
>>universal consciousness, albeit in an almost incomprehensible form. "All
>>mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in
>>human practice and in the comprehension of this practice"
>>
>>Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST