Hegel: On the Unhappy Consciousness By: Christopher P. Satoor, B.A. (Hons)

Hegel states that consciousness is utterly unhappy. The Unhappiness stems from a contradiction that lies at the very heart of consciousness. This contradiction arises because consciousness cannot unite its two sides. The problem arises with the movement of self-consciousness, becoming both Stoicism and Skepticism.   The bondsman is free, but is only free in thought. It gains its inevitable freedom with its ability to think (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007). Although the bondsman has submitted to the will of the lord; and is working for the lord, its essence is still free because the bondsman can locate the being of self-consciousness merely in its thoughts (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007). Hegel states “We are in the presence of self-consciousness in a new shape, a consciousness which, as the infinitude of consciousness or as its own pure movement, is aware of itself as essential being, a being which thinks freely or is a free self-consciousness” (Hegel 197).

The unified concepts of being and thinking represent Stoicism (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007). Stoicism can be identified in having a twofold character, one that is known as the essential-thought as free reaction-, and the latter the un-essential, -actuality freely negated. Hegel explains that we can only be free in regards to the reactions of any such content, however are freedom can only be actualized if there is a negation of such particular content (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) This leads to determining that Stoicism in essence is Skepticism. Skepticism is thus the true realization of what merely Stoicism was, a notion. Skepticism becomes the actual experience of what consists of freedom as thought (Hegel 202). Skepticism is thus, the negation through thought of any particular, which can be presented to consciousness (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) Hegel states “Skepticism, on the other hand, it is a moment of self-consciousness, to which it does not happen that its truth and reality vanish without its knowing how, but which, in its certainty of its freedom, makes this ‘other’ which claims to be real vanish” (Hegel 204). According to Hegel Skepticisms objective reality, is caused to vanish but not just its reality, its relationship to it. Skepticism can be seen as completely contradictory, because such a contradiction emerges from itself internally (Hegel 206). There is a new subsequent form of consciousness, one that brings both contradictory sides together (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) He states “Skepticism’s lack of thought about itself must vanish, because it is in fact one consciousness which contains within itself these two modes. This new form is therefore, one which knows that it is the dual consciousness” (Hegel 206).

What is left, from this problem but an abstract ‘I’ known to Hegel as the un-changing, which contains characteristics of selfsameness, and completely opposed to this, a particular changing determinate ‘I’ (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) To show the tension that has occurred Hegel brings in the example of two small children fighting amongst one another, one child screams A, and in spite of the other, the second child replies by screaming B. The first child then retaliates by screaming B, and the other child screams A and this contradiction is continued, in order to show both children’s their opposition against one another (Hegel 205). This is the problem, in Stoicism self-consciousness is freedom, however in Skepticism, this freedom through the process of negation canceled the other out. The aftermath of this problem resides in a duality where self-consciousness has duplicated itself (Hegel 206). Both sides thus need one another and destroy each other. The duplication mentioned before, becomes thrown and stuck into one identity. The lord and Bondsman which were two separate consciousnesses’ are now one, but they are not unified, and this un-satisfied unity becomes what Hegel calls as the ‘unhappy consciousnesses. The unhappy consciousness according to Hegel sees its other half and lives in the relationship of collapsing into one and falling back into the other, and “they witness this slipping between them” (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007)

Knowing that these two sides are in opposition and nothing can bring them together, the unhappy consciousness needs to somehow reconcile these vital halves, but how? To fix the contradiction, self consciousness needs to connect and unify its two crucial parts, one that is inside of itself and the other, one that is outside itself in doing so the unhappy consciousness will have to reach outside of itself. These two halves are split, the first is known as the Unchangeable, which will be the essential being, the latter will be the Changeable or known as the unessential being (Hegel 208). Both Unchangeable and the Changeable are completely alien to one another and the unhappy consciousness. The consciousness of such a contradiction thus identifies itself with the Changeable half or the unessential nature (Hegel 208). To help aid in the joining of both sides self-consciousness makes up a story to fix the problem of the awkward contradiction at hand.

The Unchangeable or the essential, is known to have characteristics of selfsameness, and gains the notion of a pure internal, unified God; Self-consciousness strictly identifies itself as the changeable or the unessential and impure. Hegel’s reasons for this are as follows. First there is a need for realization that perhaps we might have a pure side or an essential half, which can be identified as a free essence or a soul. However in a sense we are not connected with such an essence, our body stands opposed to such an essential essence; therefore we must search to re-kindle such an essence outside ourselves. This search leads us to identify God as the Universal, and the Unchangeable (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) The following will be addressing why Hegel needs to posit God in order to end the tension, that led up to the unhappy consciousness. What are his reasons and how will this help align self-consciousness with the Universal?

There is one problem that still is at issue. The matter of impurity, because the unhappy consciousness seeks to align itself in the Unchangeable and the essential nature, there must be some comprehension of its need for purification. Hegel wants to identify this early stage with the early beginnings of religion and why we need it. (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) Consciousness must in fact, do acts of kindness, so that it can be united with God. This other half, or the Unchangeable, is still comprehended as a part of its own essence, which means we must seek it out, and reach out to the beyond. However this Unchangeable or essential essence is still a part of us and is a constant cue that the unhappy consciousness cannot be like God. This is the first sign of its sin or the falling away from God. This process means that because consciousness is not God, it is thus God who judges it. In order to free ourselves from such sin we must make up for it, so Hegel wants us to realize that we need to do penance in order to move away from the impurity or sin to be pure (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007).

However there still remains one problem, in order to resolve this struggle, the unchangeable must be able to manifest itself in the Changeable or be seen as changing to end this tension. The unhappy consciousness in frustration realizes it is back to the beginning, both sides are still not united so once again it must reach out, outside itself in hope to gain its unity. The question is what is it reaching out to? Hegel is attempting to show how humans can gain an aspect of the divine but not in a universal essence, but in a human form. This way the unhappy consciousness can gain a certain hope. The hope appears as an individuality of the Unchangeable, which is an incarnation in a particular; this is Christ (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) Nevertheless, the unhappy consciousness must be able to show the resolution in all particular individuals and itself. In order to be happy, there is the arrival of the Holy Spirit which becomes the embodiment, and will of the universal, manifests itself in the Human community. The positing of the Unchangeable is thus, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Hegel 211). This incarnation or tri-part essence is thus brought into the community through the church. This move by Hegel is to show that the entire community can gain such a universal mind. The positing of Christ or the incarnate, is remains only a hope of unifying ourselves with the Unchangeable, Hegel states, “the hope of becoming one with it must remain a hope for between the hope and its fulfillment there stands precisely the absolute contingency or inflexible indifference which lies in the very assumption of definite form which was the ground for hope” (Hegel 212). This aspect is unknown and unexplainable. The relationship is an external one; this incarnate Unchangeable is thus left with an alien reality as Hegel states, which must be altered into one essence. Christ must become one with such an essence (Hegel 213). This movement of unifying Christ with our own essence has three parts. Consciousness with the incarnate will have a pure consciousness. The second part according to Hegel is a particular individual in the actual world of desire and work, and this is the attempt to make the world divine. The third part is thus the awareness of consciousness as a ‘being-for-self’ This is Hegel’s approach of showing how such particularity can unified into one essence (Hegel 214).

The problem remaining is that the only relationship to Christ we have is through his death, which is an empirical aspect that can be known through Changeable not the Unchangeable. Hegel states that we have thus devoted our search only through its mediator because it has been tainted with an empirical aspect (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) The Unchangeable is supposed to be found, through the very connection of Christ but all that is known is that of the Changeable. According to Hegel “Consciousness will abandon its quest for the Unchangeable individuality as an actual existence, or it will stop trying to hold what has vanished. Only then is it capable of finding individuality in its genuine or universal form” (Hegel 217). This means we must abandon the idea of mediation through though and our feeling, because none of these can unify us with the Unchangeable. It is the empirical world which separates us from the universal essence, so in order to thus overcome this obstacle consciousness must actualize itself in work and desire (Hegel 219). This means that since it is the Changeable world splits us from the universal essence, but through work on the world we make it suitable for the Unchangeable. 

Hegel is implying that if the world can embody this essence, it simply means that the world and the essence must have a necessary relationship with it. The unity that is being searched for can thus be exposed in it. This leads us to believe that inessential beings must have an essential aspect in order to do work for the essential being. We are given the right to change our work into the beyond because the essential being has given us such a right (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) Hegel however leads us to another problem it is God or the Unchangeable that is free, not us we gain our freedom through the Unchangeable. This realization thus means that our individuality is thus deprived of its conscious being; and upon such realization surrenders ourselves to the Unchangeable, thus sacrificing our essence and what little freedom we have. This however seems to unite us with essential essence. This becomes problematic because in denying our selfhood we become inevitably wretched, for we have lost our essence and have become mere nothingness or simply just a particularity (Hegel 223). This feeling of wretchedness is not a total negative aspect but proves that consciousness can have knowledge of such an Unchangeable essence. (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th, 2007) Somehow consciousness must dispose of its particularity and thus needs once again a mediator to help unify itself in a universal. This mediator is another being, a priest. The role of the Priest is to empty out the minds thoughts of particularity and fill it with universal content. The Priest/Minster gives us advice on what is right, what to do and what the universal consist of (Hegel 228). The unhappy consciousness has found a solution through this mediation of the Priest/Minster revealing to the unhappy consciousness its will as the Unchangeable.

In conclusion Hegel uses the very notion of God or the Unchangeable as a solution to fix the tension that had arisen out of Stoicism and skepticism. This tension which couldn’t unify its essence has now found a new purpose unified in the universal. It is in fact Hegel explication of why Human beings need religion because of our own particularity which we thus posit, outside of ourselves and the need is answered by such an essence unified in God/Universal. In positing our will as not that of ours, but of the Unchangeable we act out in working the world, and can thus conceive of our own will of another but not just any other but that of the universal. The unhappy consciousness has thus found a resolution that is thus outside of itself, but can only remain happy by being unified in the universal (Lecture notes from Professor Jim Vernon on October 25th).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hegel, Georg. W F., A. V. Miller, and J. N. Findlay. HEGEL's Phenomenology of Spirit. New York: Oxford Univeristy P, 1963. 197-230.

Hegel On Stoicism and Skepticism by Christopher P. Satoor, B.A. (Hons)

Self-consciousness in the relationship of lord and bondsman becomes obedient to the lord. This obedience that self-consciousness has obtained has played a part in the new essential nature that has arisen (Hegel, 197). This essential nature in the process of its development becomes one that loses its objective and intrinsic value (Hegel, 197). Hegel states: “Thus this self-consciousness does not become an ‘I’ that in its simplicity is genuinely self-differentiating, or that in this absolute differentiating remain identical with itself” (Hegel, 197). He states that consciousness is thus thrown back into itself, and projects itself to be an object. During this process, consciousness sees in the lord what it wills to be, a “consciousness that exists as a being-for-itself” (Hegel, 197). However, the obedient consciousness has two moments: one that is contained in being an object -or objectified essence- the other as being ‘for-itself’ in that of the lord. This opposition of both ‘for-itself’ and the ‘object,’ fall apart in a sense; consciousness takes a new form according to Hegel (Hegel, 197). When this process falls apart we see that ‘being-for-itself’ is in fact for us, and the objective essence which looked inwards to the lord was in fact consciousness (Hegel 197). This moment is a state where consciousness becomes fully aware of itself; a state where consciousness has its own essential being. In this essential being, consciousness can freely think for itself, and become a ‘free consciousness’ (Hegel 197). 

Hegel states: “For to think does not mean to be an abstract ‘I,’ but an ‘I’ which at the same time the significance of intrinsic being, of having itself for an object, or reflecting itself to objective being in such a way that its significance is the being-for-self of consciousness” (Hegel, 197). However, consciousness, now aware of this process has come to terms that ‘it simply is’ (Hegel 197). What does this mean? Hegel means that there is possibly something other than consciousness. This other isn’t a determinate being, but is an aspect of what is in consciousness -which he calls a notion- (Hegel, 197). This notion is also existent and consists only in thought, which brings a unity between thought and consciousness. Consciousness then becomes aware of such a unity and realizes that such a notion exists for us (Hegel 197). Hegel states: “In thinking I am free, because I am not an ‘other,’ but remain simply and solely in communion with myself and the object, which is for me, the essential being, is in undivided unity in my being-for-myself” (Hegel, 197). Hegel is trying to prove that thinking is a movement within oneself (Hegel, 197). This movement with an object has both ‘being-in-itself’ and ‘being-for-itself,’ contained in a unity for self-consciousness (Hegel, 197).

This process, states Hegel has characteristics of ‘selfsameness’ which forces itself from itself and slowly becomes aware of existence, but not as a being, but as a ‘being-in-itself’ (Hegel, 198). However, consciousness knows that this step is only a part of the process of the movement; it does not accept itself as a being-in-itself; it knows that this step is an element to its definite being (Hegel, 198).  According to Hegel, the freedom of self consciousness is aligned with a historical school of thought called stoicism (Hegel, 198). Hegel outlines stoicism to be, consciousness as a being that thinks (Hegel, 198). It’s important to note, that in mentioning stoicism, Hegel wants us to identify that it is a consciousness -holding a belief that is good- only because it thinks it is good (Hegel 198).
 

Consciousness overall has an unenthusiastic opinion of this lord and bondage relationship. The lord cannot find the truth in the bondsman, and the bondsman cannot find true meaning in the lord. They both wish to be free, and in this relationship both become indifferent to their roles. They both want desire, they have needs, and yet they achieve these things in a stoic way, in which they think the need is good only because they think it. (Hegel 199). Hegel states that the self-will is thus freedom, which is driven into some individuality which can be clearly seen in this case of bondage (Hegel 199). Hegel states “Stoicism is the freedom which always comes directly out of bondage and returns into the pure thought” (Hegel 199). There is a need for stoicism, as it works in an all encompassing ‘world-Spirit ‘and comes on the scene at a time of “universal fear and bondage” (Hegel 199).

Self-consciousness contains a unique ‘otherness’. This’ otherness’ is one that is not apart, of the pure abstraction of an ‘I’, but an ‘I’ that contains this ‘otherness’ within itself as a form of thought.(Hegel 200). This ‘otherness is a process in which it proceeds back into itself. The essence of this ‘otherness’ is the only one that is abstract (Hegel 200). This leads to the freedom of consciousness, not caring about its natural existence, which abandons life completely. According to Hegel this sets up a twofold reflection. This reflection is as follows, “Freedom in thought has only pure thought as its truth, a truth that is lacking the fullness of life” (Hegel 200). According to Hegel stoicism is not the life embodied with content and experience, but it is a life of the opposite, one where such content, is collapsed back into itself. This process then confuses what is the ‘true’ and what is the ‘good ‘leaving concepts that are empty (Findlay p.523). What is left is an incomplete negation, because of such abstract freedom, which Hegel states as “Is thus only the incomplete negation of otherness” (Hegel 201). What can settle these problems? How can we obtain order in all of this? Hegel’s answer is skepticism. To Hegel skepticism is thus, realizing that stoicism is simply a notion. Skepticism thus becomes the real actualization of a freedom of thought (Hegel 202). It is in skepticism where we see Hegel’s principle of the negative at work. “In skepticism, now, the wholly unessential and non-independent character of this ‘other’ becomes explicit for consciousness; and the [abstract] thought becomes the concrete thinking which annihilates the being of the world in all its manifold determinateness, and the negativity comes to know itself” (Hegel 202). This negativity in the aforementioned quote helps recognize the true forms of life clearly as a real negativity for thought (Hegel 202).

Stoicism purpose is thus equivalent to the connection of the independent consciousness, which is seen in the relationship of Lord and bondage. Skepticism main purpose is to gain this negative outlook of ‘otherness’ (Hegel 2002). However skepticism in the end holds a dialectical process, which can be seen as negating the determinateness from our thoughts. These results leave us with empty concepts, so skepticism doesn’t see the concrete world as a whole. None of these instances can help accept its own perception, for all it sees is the constant disappearance of its content. (Findlay p.524)  The skeptic is thus left in an array of disorder, unable to come to terms with any of its justifications of the world (Findlay p.524)

Schopenhauer: On the Vanity of Existence

This is one of greatest Philosophers of all time, Most undergraduate programs in Philosophy forget this great writer we hardly ever read any of his great work, he was a brilliant poet and a brilliant successor of both Kant, and Hegel.  In my opinion, he has truly destroyed the Kantian and Hegelians systems and we must remember it is Schopenhauer that WAKE'S Nietzsche up from the storm... it is Schopenhauer that teaches Nietzsche to dance with Dionysus and to bring chaos into the heart of philosophy, This is an essay and a account of Schopenhauer's system, enjoy!!!
 

Schopenhauer can be identified as the ultimate pessimist, one that stated the bold comment that life itself is...“the worst of all possible worlds” (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008). Schopenhauer saw the very roots of existence as “A business that, simply doesn’t cover its costs” (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008). Human happiness is an illusion and life itself is a wretched existence (Schopenhauer p.95).

According to Schopenhauer, all of humanity can be reduced down to desiring machines. This desiring machine is like a drug addict always searching and acquiring for another fix, only to strive for another; and thus be constantly stuck in an endless cycle of fulfilling its selfish needs and wants (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008). Each second that passes by, is a decaying of self, which is approaching its death (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008). Humans, being mortal, have no value because our finite life prevents us from lasting through eternity.

According to Schopenhauer, the only things that have value are items that last forever, and since human life has a specific time and duration that is finite; and not infinite are lives have no intrinsic meaning what so ever (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008).  Schopenhauer states that life slips through our fingers like sand in an hour glass. Each and every second our lives, are constantly fleeting, dissipating, and being annihilated (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008)

According to Schopenhauer we must be fully aware of the meaninglessness that surrounds us. The boredom that we feel from time to time is a constant reminder of how empty we are, and how our existence is a mistake (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008) Everything we know and love in the world will be gone and come to a crashing halt. We are constantly on the go and stuck in our daily routines, and this is the dreadful reality of life, a reality where there is no rest and there is no finality to anything (Lecture notes from Professor David Jopling on Thursday October 16th, 2008)

The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate Schopenhauer’s claims and to determine if existence is intrinsically valueless. I will attempt to investigate into his account that existence can be identified as change, unrest, decay, frustration and boredom and whether there is a sufficient reason behind holding such a pessimistic account. If these claims prove to be valid, then the question is whether it is at all possible to find any meaning or value in our lives? These are the matters that will be discussed.

Schopenhauer states that the vanity in life expresses the totality of all existent things (Schopenhauer p.95). Vanity remains present in all things; it is even present in the infinite nature of time and space; and in every passing moment on Earth (Schopenhauer p.95). It can also be identified as a real mode of existence (Schopenhauer p.95). It can be defined as disseminating expressions that are clearly seen in all of our actions, including the desire of wishing for new things, and our feelings of dissatisfaction (Schopenhauer p.95). Vanity penetrates all human life and serves as the antagonist that causes the battles in historical accounts of our lives (Schopenhauer p.95). It causes that harsh difficulties we face in our daily routine and remains as the obstacles that need to be overcome (Schopenhauer p.95).

Time is the feature where all things pass on and away. It is the awkward becoming without ever truly being (Schopenhauer p.95). Schopenhauer states that time is a paradox as it passes by us… “It is merely the form under which the ‘will to live’-the thing-in-itself and therefore imperishable- has revealed to it, and us, that are efforts are in vain; and it is that agent by which every moment that all things in our hands become as nothing, and loose any real value they possess”(Schopenhauer p.95).

What this quote is saying about time is as follows, that a time that passes ceases to exist, because in that moment it has already passed us. This moment in time thus becomes insignificant in the grand scheme of things (Schopenhauer p.95). It’s as if it had never existed at all. Schopenhauer’s point is to draw a connection in the metaphor of time with human beings. We are here for such a short time, and our time passes us so quickly, everything that had meaning to us in that specific time of our life is now meaningless and has lost its intrinsic value. It is us that will one day become insignificant; it is us that will one day become obsolete, because of every passing moment in our lives (Schopenhauer p.95).

The big picture in all of this is the universe. The universe has exited for millions of years and will continue to exist for millions of years; we are a tiny speck in the mass of the whole universe. When we all pass away we shall return to the state of non-existence that had occurred prior to our absurd existence, which sprung us out as a cosmic fluke (Schopenhauer p.95). It is this certain truth that Schopenhauer thinks that the human heart cannot grasp (Schopenhauer p.95). Schopenhauer wants to stress the importance of time and space here, and how it plays an important role in metaphysics and how it aids our comprehension in understanding the aforementioned point (Schopenhauer p.95).

Schopenhauer states… “That of every event in our lives we say only for the moment that it is; For ever after that it was. Every evening we are poorer by day” (Schopenhauer p.95). It is here in this quote that Schopenhauer is pointing out that it would make people insane if they knew the real truth about life. Life is like a blink of an eye, one second here, one second there, and the next it is gone. This is why he states that every second this short span of life fades away before our very eyes (Schopenhauer p.95).
Schopenhauer has a certain sarcastic tone as the rest of the discourse continues. He states that any great wisdom amounts to us making the best out of life, and this consists in enjoyment, and enjoyment of the present.

This moment is our only reality (Schopenhauer p.95). Just as we are left with one positive remark, Schopenhauer rocks this thesis with an antithesis and flips this statement back into his lethal pessimistic attack; each second brings us closer to our death, so the idea of great wisdom is also the greatest error. Every passing moment of our life that emerges, also fades and withers simultaneously… “Vanishes utterly like a dream, and can never be worth a series effort” (Schopenhauer p.95). There is a motion to life, a movement which is dependent upon our existence and that is, that our present life is always fleeting.

Life is fleeting because we are always in a constant rush, a steady flow, a constant motion where none of us can reach that rest we need, and are aiming for. Schopenhauer gives us an example of how restful life is this is an explicit example of the fleeting and motion that never rests (Schopenhauer p.95). It is, imagine a man who is running down a giant hill who cannot stop his legs from moving, the downward pull of the hill is constantly pushing and pulling him, this makes his running even more intense, he must keep running onward. If he stops the movement or if he stops this action of running, he will fall and plunge to his utter death. His body and legs become dependent on this constant motion and movement, this pull which is like a driving force. He must keep running, in hopes of keeping his legs on, and in fear of stopping and falling.

So the man is forced to keep this pace, to forever be a slave to this motion and to running down the hill (Schopenhauer p.95). This example sounds exactly like ‘The Myth of Sisyphus.’ Sisyphus who angered the gods was punished for all eternity, thus he was forced to roll a boulder up a hill, and he got to the very top of the hill he would watch in horror as the boulder fell back down, an endless cycle (Camus p.110). If we think about the example of the man running down the hill who can’t stop running, Schopenhauer uses this example to spell out that unrest becomes the ultimate sign of existence (Schopenhauer p.95). Schopenhauer states…“That all is unstable and nothing can endure, but is swept onwards at once in the hurrying whirlpool of change” (Schopenhauer p.95). This life of unrest is followed by a moment of change, and then another moment of change, which proceeded the last moment and this continuous model governs the steady alterations of life (Schopenhauer p.95). These constant changes makes the goal of a happy life, never fully attainable, happiness slips through our fingers like butter, impossible to hold (Schopenhauer p.96).


Human beings in a sense, according to Schopenhauer, are stuck in a complex desiring cycle; every moment that passes we are always in need of something else. Each moment of our life is devoted to attaining one specific thing, and when we have it we don’t want it anymore, we want something new. We are stuck in this sad pathetic state of being a slave to our desires and our needs (Schopenhauer p.96). There is always something new to attain and the more we receive, from these desires, the farther the cycle is interwoven in us. We never fully reach any of our goals, and this constant desiring cycle only makes room for an end, in disappointment (Schopenhauer p.96). In the bitter end it doesn’t matter whether we are happy or miserable, Schopenhauer states that life is nothing but a series of constant moments, vanishing before our eyes (Schopenhauer p.96).

According to Schopenhauer life, in general; and organic life as a whole could not exist with out the perpetual, continuous, change of matter (Schopenhauer p.96). In Schopenhauer’s own words this process is ‘the realm of finality’ and it’s exact opposite is that of the infinite (Schopenhauer p.96). An infinite existence would not be prone to the external forces of the world and attacked. An infinite existence would not need anything for survival; it wouldn’t have any dependencies on anything the reversal is humanities curse (Schopenhauer p.96). Man’s existence however, is finite and humanity does depend on internal and external forces. Life as finite begins and ends at the same time, this makes Schopenhauer conclude that life has no meaning and is valueless (Schopenhauer p.96). What remains from Schopenhauer’s dreary picture is thus a denial of ‘the will to live’, and this clears the path for humanity, to come to terms with the real truth about our existence (Schopenhauer p.96).

According to Schopenhauer life is a restless motion, driven by two prime impulses, our hunger and our sexual drives (Schopenhauer p.96). Schopenhauer states that these two-fold states-hunger and sexual impulses- are guided by the immense influence of boredom.
Schopenhauer states that our life is like watching, the scenes of everything we have done organized in an obscure painting (Schopenhauer p.96). If we have our face pressed against the painting we miss the subtleties of life’s effect. No beautify can be present unless we take a step back to be able to see the painting in its entirety (Schopenhauer p.96). To gain anything from this experience is to come to terms with everything and to realize that what we have longed for and discovered is filled with vanity and emptiness (Schopenhauer p.96).

This is Schopenhauer’s main point that… “we are always living in the expectation of better things and at the same time we repent and long to have the sacred past again” (Schopenhauer p.96). It is through our chronic nostalgia for the past that lets our present life go by us, and slip away (Schopenhauer p.96). We get stuck in a specific time, and disregard the present life which becomes no longer enjoyable and full of regret (Schopenhauer p.96). However, we may try to strive towards a single hope, but then it’s already too late and death comes calling on us (Schopenhauer p.96).

According to Schopenhauer man lays seeds of desire everywhere (Schopenhauer p.96). What these seeds grow into and blossom are none other, then a set of desires, which in turn produce more desires, and there is no end to these specific desires and certainly no end to our individual will (Schopenhauer p.96). Our will in his words is…“The lord of all worlds” (Schopenhauer p.96). Everything and every property of ourselves are given over to this will (Schopenhauer p.96). Our very own self belongs to the will, and there are never any feelings of satisfaction only the constant drive to engulf the endless totality of the world (Schopenhauer p.96). This will doesn’t get everything it wants only a certain amount of things and this is why we are plagued by misery.

Schopenhauer states that there are some necessary task’s in life. The first is earning a living, which amounts to working everyday (Schopenhauer p.97). By doing this act we face an on going constant burden (Schopenhauer p.97). Life seems like a constant triviality, and this leads to boredom (Schopenhauer p.97). Man must fight against boredom this is the second task we are faced with, coping with the boredom in our lives (Schopenhauer p.97).

According to Schopenhauer man is a multiplicity of needs, wants and necessities. Sometimes these needs and necessities are fulfilled, but it is at the moment when we realize that the sudden urge is no longer there and we have kept pain away, an uncanny felling lies present with us, it is boredom (Schopenhauer p.97). Even in the moment of being fully satisfied we still feel the presence of boredom (Schopenhauer p.96). This is where Schopenhauer concludes that life has no meaning at all and is utterly valueless (Schopenhauer p.96). If boredom still remains present even after a time of satisfaction then there is really nothing to life in the first place. Boredom becomes the feeling of absolute emptiness (Schopenhauer p.97). This whole ideology adds to the illusion of life what exactly are we struggling for? Absolutely, nothing; Humanity is caught up in an existence that is vain and utterly empty (Schopenhauer p.97). In Schopenhauer’s closing statements he concludes with a poetic destruction of mankind… “ The generation of men as they live their little mock hour of existence and then are swept away in rapid succession; if we turn from this, and look at life in its small details as presented, say in a comedy, how ridiculous it all seem!”(Schopenhauer p.97). He finally states that life is utterly a mistake.

Levinas and Heidegger: On the ‘Others’ By: Christopher P. Satoor

I thought I would submit to you all my work on Levinas and Heidegger, this is a solid critque of the Heideggerian system.  Trully it is an attempt on Levinas's behalf to re-counter Ontology.

This paper is an enquiry into the two philosophies of Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Levinas. Both are writing on and concerned with the relationship between beings and the ‘other.’ The following paper will be an investigation of both these philosophers’ theories. For Heidegger, his search begins with a question of who these others are. Since Da-sein is a being and a being-in-the-world, this being-in-the-world is also a being-with-one-another. The others for Heidegger are the ‘they.’ According to Heidegger, everyone is the other. No one or any person are truly themselves; everyone is the ‘they,’ and everyone has already surrendered themselves to the ‘they’ (Heidegger p.120). The ‘they’ are an elusive transparency, which Heidegger calls the ‘Neuter’ (Heidegger p.119). Being-with-others to Heidegger, is a part of Da-sein’s absorption into the everydayness of the ‘they’ (Heidegger p.119). This everydayness in turn masks Da-sein’s -own most- possibilities into the they’s averageness (Heidegger p.118). According to Heidegger, Da-sein as being-in-the-world, shares a publicness with the ‘they’ and in a sense this publicness makes Da-sein comprehend itself in the others (Heidegger p.119).  Levinas has a different view of otherness and the other.

Before addressing the other, Levinas feels that the history of philosophy is flawed. According to Levinas, the flaw in philosophy is accepting the vast notion of universality through a third term (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). The reason why Levinas has such a problem with the concept of universality is that it diminishes the individual into an immeasurable totality. Like Heidegger, Levinas uses the word absorbed. Being absorbed means being swallowed whole, into the totality. This is a vanishing of our unique differences (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). In a sense, we all become the same. The next move will be different from Heidegger. Levinas will attempt to save the individual’s singularity (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th).

To save this unique singularity, Levinas needs to stop erroneous philosophies that encompass a synthesis of self into the other. The individual, ‘I,’ must be separated from the other (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). This separation helps bring back the singularity to the “I”. Levinas will state that once this separation is complete there must be a relationship between this “I” and the other (Lecture not from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). This relationship is spawned through the concept of infinity. Levinas states “If totality can not be constituted, it is because infinity does not permit itself to be integrated” (Levinas p.80). According to Levinas, existing as separated is necessitated by having the idea of infinity (Levinas p.80).

Levinas wants us to realize that the true idea of infinity is found in discourse and this association is “…an ethical relation” (Levinas p.80). Already we can start to see the difference between Levinas and Heidegger. Levinas has portrayed philosophy as dangerous and violent, and stresses the need of individuality by separating oneself and engaging in a relationship with the other. Levinas has put more pressure on the level of responsibility to the other. We become, in a sense, more responsible when we engage in an ‘ethical relation’ with the other (Levinas p.80).

Jacques Derrida, a student of Levinas, and also a scholar in the works of both Heidegger and Levinas sums up the relation between both of these philosophers as follows: 

“Levinas wants to remind us that responsibility is not at first responsibility of myself, for myself; that the sameness of myself is derived from the perspective of the other, as if it were second to the other, coming to itself as responsible and moral from the position of my responsibility before the other”(Derrida p.47).

This idea of responsibility is quite different from Heidegger’s case. The idea of responsibility is portrayed in Da-sein’s constitution, which is ‘care.’ As a being with being, Da-sein has concern; however, this concern is not for the other; this concern is for itself or Da-sein’s ‘own most’ possibilities. Heidegger states:


“Da-sein is a being which is concerned in its being about that being. The ‘is’ concerned about…has become clearer in the constitution of being of understanding as a self-projective being towards its ‘own most’ potentiality-for-being” (Heidegger p.179). 

Heidegger’s call to conscience is that of a call to care. The concerned Da-sein has care for itself and not for an other. Da-sein feel’s guilty or lost in ‘the they’ and must return to its true authentic self. Levinas would find fault in Heidegger’s methodology for these reasons. It is important to Levinas to encounter the other not to flee from it. In this relationship -face-to-face- I do not know the other, but when the other and I engage in an ethical relation, language is the key to communicating with the other. Each encompasses infinity in this face-to-face encounter. Levinas states:
 

“This conjuncture is irreducible to totality; the ‘face to face’ position is not a modification of the ‘along side of…Even when I shall have linked the ‘other’ to myself with the conjuncture ‘and’ the ‘other’ continues to face me, to reveal himself in his face…the face to face remains an ultimate situation” (Levinas p.80).


These relations with the other are a result of ‘reason,’ ‘language’ and ‘universality’ (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). Levinas’ goal here is that by engaging in relationships with the other, equality is found through the encounter. This promotes equality among all others as well (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). This equality promotes what I had mentioned previously regarding the responsibility for the other; the I is responsible for the other and that other and so on (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th).

This is a crucial difference between Heidegger and Levinas; Heidegger stresses the importance on being and makes this concept of being more exclusive than beings and existents (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). It is by stressing being over existents, where Levinas sees us losing our face; there is no encounter with the other; the other is reduced to an impersonal character and Levinas feels this is unjust. (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). Levinas states: 

“Language is not enacted within a consciousness; it comes to me from the other and reverberates in consciousness by putting it into question” (Levinas p 206). 

There is a certain meaning by engaging in this face to face relationship; it is a primordial fact, according to Levinas, which lies in language (Levinas p.206). The face is the first primary signification and the first sign to existence (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). This signification occurs in being with language, because language becomes the true essence involved in the relation of the other. Heidegger talks of language as well; however, he calls true language discourse. All other language is found in the they. The they speak language through ‘idle talk’ disguise the true meaning of language (Heidegger p.158).This is described by Heidegger as 

“…a mode of being of the uprooted understanding of Da-sein (Heidegger p.159). Heidegger also calls it chatter. It is disguised in newspapers and magazines. It is the talk that covers over the realm of intelligibility and promotes an ambiguity" (Heidegger p.160). 

The question is if ‘the they’ are responsible for this negative encounter with language then how is it possible to obtain a truly authentic experience with the other or anyone at all? This is completely different to what Levinas has conceptualized it as; he explains how we see that language aids in the face to face encounter, which adds to the signification of real being.  Levinas finds it quite weird why Heidegger’s Da-sein doesn’t take part in food consumption, and this is a good point. Nowhere in Being in Time, does Heidegger even bring up the notion of nutrition. It’s not any real part of Da-sein’s horizons. 

Heidegger’s notion of equipment -or tools- is that there is an understanding; when I pick up the hammer and nails, I already understand the tools that I am holding as ‘ready-to-hand.’ Levinas finds fault with this; he feels that there has to be a mode of pleasure in the action; this pleasure is invoked before I pick up the hammer and nails. There must be a pre-mode of pleasure for me to be hammering the nail into the piece of wood. Do I enjoy this? Did I want to hammer this nail into the wood? Now Heidegger is simply stating that as a being-in-the-world, we are accustomed to the equipment around us; therefore, we have an appropriate understanding of the ready-to-hand objects or tools (Heidegger p.53). 

One of the most crucial points that Levinas articulates, is the notion of being reduced. No one or person should ever be reduced to the same. Levinas states: “To kill is not to dominate, but to annihilate; it is to renounce comprehension absolutely. Murder exercises a power over what escapes power. It is still a power, for the face expresses itself in the sensible, but already impotency, because the face rends the sensible” (Levinas p.198). Levinas is stating that this is as a descriptive fact that no one can ever be reduced to oneself. The murderer, by killing the individual, is thus invoking their wrath and reducing the other to the notion of the same. Professor Mark Cauchi gave us the example of the commandment in the bible, “Thou shall not Kill” and in comparison to this commandment there is a level of responsibility that we have for the other; we don’t take the lives of the many; so in retrospective, “Thou shall not kill” is really to Levinas “Thou shall not reduce the other to that of the same” (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). Levinas wants us to realize that we need our simple relations with these others; they open the doors to a world of reason, language and universality (Lecture notes from Professor Mark Cauchi on Thursday April 4th). 

In this paper I have presented the claims of both Heidegger and Levinas; however, I feel that Levinas has stressed more ethics than being; Heidegger’s great Ontology is profound, but one flaw that is truly evident in it, is its subjective center. Da-sein has a concern for its own-most potentiality, and not for the other. Levinas has incorporated a relationship with the other; by embracing the other, he transcends this subjective standpoint and adds a fully operational system, based on an objective mean. Levinas’ philosophy is geared towards the other because by encountering a relationship with the other, the I and the other form a concept that can never be reducible: infinity!

This was a great reconstruction of Multiplicity, By Avinaash and Myself, Please feel free to jump in!!!

Chris:

Let's review what I wrote. The skpeis is a method, one that reveals truths, but the only truths that can be valid enough to sustain proper philosophical rigor are mathematical and geometrical. Descartes sees the world as a mass machine who's movement, and life work like clockwork, mechanistic world, Porpelling all things in it. The Universe as a universal totality can only be given to us "the rational-animals" provoding 2 things. First we use our reason in accordance, with the fundamental activity which reveals a method. Everyone can reason, lack of reasoning just means one is not reaching to their full potential. Reasoning or the ability to reason means we can consciously think, or produce ideas, but the validity of these ideas unless falsifiable, are to be challeneged. However we can not question whether 2+2=4 these are mathematical truths. 2+2 will always equal four in an infinite number of worlds planets and dimensions, hense in order to reach a demonstrable theory or science one needs to align a theory of knowledge with principles that cannot be challenged or proven to be false. Did caesar cross the rubicon? perhaps but 2+2=4 cannot be argued if one can reason, and one can deduce these mathematical truths then this process leads to the very important observation that the invidual is thinking them. If we give Descartes the benefit of the doubt through the Skepsis what we see is a perfect schema of his geometrical system God represents a perfection a infinite universe, one that is held in the plane of all mathematical truths, an inperfection like an evil genious to deceive the universe or Humans, will debunk the universality of the universe, and mathematical truths, hense Descartes in sensing that perhaps i am being deceived I am thinking, but let's scrap the idea of being deceived if he is reasoning at all, geometrically or mathematically then the I that his him must be thining even if their is such a notion of an demon that decived him, Descartes is still among the universe, and is still using a flawsless system, no matter how circular it is. Circularity is erlevent, what is relevent is this

2+2=4 This is true based on mathematical truths.

the universe as an infinite totality isa part of this mathematical system making it's truth-value system demonstrable

hense Descartes who thinks these thought through his reasoning or my concept of the "skepsis" is logically fulfilling his prinicple of putting his reason to the test.

Perfection=the universe, hense nothing imperfect could exist or the universe would shatter, hense we would all not exist, ergo, a thing that things that postulates through mathematical principles or axiomatics, has proven a method and a system based on the bigger picture the universe. God represents the universe, and Descartes using the geometrical system can delve his way through finding the princples of the Universe!!!! this is an elboration without the poetic Jargon for anyone whom find my last post incrediably hard to read!!!

Avinaash:

A problem I see with Descartes' system and trust of reason is that he doesn't quite put the value of truth into question. His method of doubt puts to the test all that is possibly dubitable. Now, the interesting thing in my opinion is that Descartes' method of doubt has already selected what can be doubted from what is undubitable, I.e. beyond doubt. By that I mean that because Descartes' method follows the pattern of reason, the only thing it won't be able to doubt is reason. In other words, reason has set up the method of doubt to prove everything to be dubitable apart from reason itself. Descartes creates a sort of Tribunal of Reason, where reason judges all things and finds them guilty of not passing the test of certainty of reason itself.

Descartes says that he cannot doubt that 1 + 1 = 2. He is right. It is absurd to believe that it cannot be the case that 1 + 1 = 2; after all, he has proven his case pretty well.

One possible description of mathematics is to say that it is a system of proportions and relations. This has for direct consequence that the object of mathematic has to be able to be put into proportions and relations. An example would be fit here.

I've read somewhere that it is possible to doubt that 1 + 1 = 2 since when adding two drops of water we obtain a singularity, in other terms, for water, 1 + 1 = 1.

But we have not defeated mathematics by saying so because mathematics is a system of proportions and relations. A drop of water is a proportion, i.e. it is measurable. Let's assume in this case that a drop of water is a measure of 1 ml. Then, the ability of the drop of water to be measured means that the drop of water can enter into a mathematical relation. Our example is completely transformed and expresses its mathematical nature because 1 ml + 1 ml = 2 ml.

The point is that mathematics is a system of proportions and relations that is applied to a symptom. The word symptom here merely suggests natural manifestations.

Descartes’ philosophy is an attempt at imposing a system of proportions and relations on symptoms, and the belief that this system will reveal the absolutely true nature of that symptom.

But one question remains to be asked, to what extent does mathematics trully reveals the symptom? In other words, what is the truth value of mathematics? Does the mathematical method reveal the true aspect of its subject of study? After all, since mathematics is a system of proportions and relations, all it demonstrate are differences in degree, not differences in kind.

All symptoms are both differences in degree and differences in kind, that are subject to interpretation. Mathematics interprets differences in degree but cannot say anything about differences in kind, therefore preventing the seeker of truth to have access to the true nature of that symptom… the true nature of the world.

This is Nietzsche’s main critique against the method of reason. 

Chris:

Let us invent a word here the 'Skepsis' i am inventing this word because Descartes isn't clearly a skeptic from a pyyhrhonian point of view he seems like a reversal of a pyyrhonian, there-fore i placed skeptical and anaylisis together to form what i think Descartes is doing. His method is a 'skepsis' a skeptical anaylisis of the world around him, this skepsis can change as more information is gathered but this method is a way of disclosing the world through mathematical and geometrical truths. One sees light as a luminosity bringing it's life into a room bouncing off all walls expressing a totality of truths...Descartes sees the world and the universe in this 'skepsis' or luminosity like light boucning of all the walls the universe is like a machine that moves like clockwork. If our senses cannot be trusted and only mathematical truths can be verifed, how does one in the cartesian sense disclose the world of being? the skeptical analysis or 'skepsis' is that proceduare..keep in mind this is my own concept which i am using to bring to light Descartes method perhaps even explain descartes a little more clearer while giving him the benefit of the doubt.. The skeptical anaylisis is Descartes ploy to prrove that mathematical truth can reveal that he exists. for him to even think of mathematics there must be an I or individual that thinks the process in some place...let's not call it a mind let's call it a plane...on the plane of consistency there is a moment were the very being of descartes thinks of 2+3=5 meaning that Descartes as a being must think these truths but where? Somewhere in the universe or all over this plane of consistency 2+3=5 everywhere this is validation he must use to prove his existence.. this attributed to the mind..... the mind is what consciously absorbed these truths or these so called valid truths. But how and when did they get there?

the evil genious is this "skepsis" or skeptical anaylsis, if an evil genious is decieving me how can i be sure of the world around me, in fact the argument is circular and his answer is circular, but it's circulairty is a Hermeneutical circle meaning - an intrepretation of meaning and validity of a concecpt in it's place- it no longer matters that it's circulairty is appearent, what matters is it's ontological presence or it's thinking in rigourous terms. If there is an evil genious and he is deceiving me the septical anaylisis or the 'skepsis' prooves to Descartes that he might be decieved but in order to be deceived he must be thinking and alive in order to be deceived!!! If we take his argument of God and replace God with a universal mathemtical totality and call it perfection which i think Descartes is imploying then there is no demon a world that is made up or built on mathematical truths is a perfection...perfection=the universe therefore everything that is contained in the universe is perfect this negates the demon...and the circularity, what it does, is represents the skepsis as a i think therefore i am. the cogito now reads as follow "I am a being - a perfect being in matheimatical universe...one that expresses his very being in thought.

by explaining that humans are rational animals, humans as a species pick up a triat thinking. therefore thinking is aligned with being, in the parmedian sense thinking=being, being =thinking i am I exist among the world, which have laws that are represnted in a geometrical equation whose mathematical princples can never be doubted!!! the skepsis reveals that descartes circularity is purposiveful to disclose relative truth that are impinged on the world. the pointing the finger trick!!!! God would not want to decieve descartes how could there be such a concept as an evil genious in a perfect mathematical universe, there couldn't hense descartes is an existent, with the triat of thinking, the universe is held together by it's pyhjsical laws and mathematical truths and descartes Cogito represents the first primordial comprehension of being and thinking and existing in the universe.....