Alexander Timofeev. Phenomenological experience according to Hegel. Vol. 4. No. 2. 2019

Publication Details

Abstract

In the present paper, the Hegelian concept of experience is analyzed through the lens of interaction of consciousness and self-consciousness of the actual individual. For this purpose, the analytic method and comparative-historical method have been applied. For Hegel, the core issue is in how to correlate the ideal and the real, the logical necessity and the sense certainty, the social and individual aspects of being of the human in experience in non-casual way. From his point of view, any content of consciousness is a result of activity or, if speaking more up to date technical philosophical language, performativity of the spirit both in the form of a singular subject and in the form of universal selfness. We tried to manifest that the phenomenological analysis of experience delivers some patterns of action leading to realization of the objective which is implicitly built in it. In this sense, the experience includes within itself a paradigmal but not systematic basis. That means, the experience is more fundametal here than the method, in the sense that the logical necessity as a basis of the method can not be actual beyond the experience. In the end, the result of the action in the experience is production, or, more precisely, productions of many individualities, which, on the one hand, constitute the content of the spirit, while on the other hand, they give an impulse to interaction of individualities. This is what could be titled “paradigmal performativity”. Compliant to such interpretation, a conclusion follows that the value of Hegelian understanding of experience is in that the experience of actual subjects of spiritual activity is interpreted. The moment of singularity (individuality) as negative unity of experience appears a necessary element of the process of this experience. Thus, the methods and methodology of reasoning the real negativity, real differences and contradictions is formed. The Hegelian understanding of experience allows not only to review the experience of the subject of consciousness, but also to unite the sociopsychological observation disclosing the activity of separate individuals, with comprehesion of definite subsequence of spiritual activity in all the three forms of the spirit, subjective, objective and absolute. It exposes the necessity for a singular consciousness to stand on the viewpoint of the universal self-consciousness.

Keywords

Hegel, Spirit, activity, experience, performativity, paradigmality, consciousness, self-consciousness.

References 

Asmus V. F. (1928) “Obshchaya i transcendental’naya logika Kanta” [General and transcendental logic of Kant]. Pod znamenem marksizma. № 11 [Under the banner of Marxism. No. 11]: 130–175. (in Russian).

Bachinin V. A. (1978) “Dostoevsky i Hegel: k problem ‘razorvannogo soznaniya’” [Dostoyevsky and Hegel: notes on the problem of ‘disrupted consciousness’]. Dostoevsky. Materialy i issledovaniya. Т. 3 [Dostoyevsky. Materials and studies. Vol. 3]. Leningrad: Nauka: 13–20. (in Russian).

Bykova M. F. (1996) Misteriya logiki i tajna sub”ektivnosti. O zamysle fenomenologii i logiki u Hegelya [Mystery of logic and secret of subjectivity. On design of phenomenology and logic according to Hegel]. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).

Descartes R. (1950) “Principia philosophiae”. Descartes R. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected works]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoj literatury: 409–544. (in Russian).

Deleuze G. (1995) Logique du sens. Moscow: Izdatel’skij centr “Akademiya”. (in Russian).

Düsing К. (1980) “Objektive und subjektive Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Kants Zeittheorie und ihrer modernen kritischen Rezeption”. Kant-Studien. Nr. 71. Heft 1: 1–34.

Düsing К. (2010) “Idealisticheskaya istoriya samosoznaniya v gegelevskoj koncepcii ‘Fenomenologii duha’” [Idealistic history of self-consciousness in Hegelian conception of “Phenomenology of Spirit”]. “Fenomenologiya duha” Hegelya v kontekste sovremennogo gegelevedeniya [“Phenomenology of Spirit” in the context of modern Hegelian studies] (ed. by N. V. Motroshilova). Moscow: “Kanon-plyus” ROOI “Reabilitaciya”: 220–236. (in Russian).

Hegel G. W. F. (1959) “Phänomenologie des Geistes”. Hegel G. V. F. Soch.: v 14 t. T. 4 [Works in 14 vol. Vol. 4]. Moscow: Sotsekgiz. (in Russian).

Hegel G. W. F. (1971) “Philosophische Propädeutik”. Hegel G. W. F. Raboty raznykh let. V 2 t. T. 2 [Miscellaneous Works in 2 vol. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 40 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 40]): 5–209. (in Russian).

Hegel G. W. F. (1972) Wissenschaft der Logik. V 3 t. T. 3 [In 3 vol. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 48 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 48]). (in Russian).

Hegel G. V. F. (1974) Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. Erster Teil. Die Wissenschaft der Logik. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 63 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 63]). (in Russian).

Hegel G. V. F. (1975a) Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. Zweiter Teil. Die Wissenschaft der Natur. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 64 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 64]). (in Russian).

Hegel G. W. F. (1975b) “Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Einleitung. Erster Teil. Der Begriff der Religion. Zweiter Teil. Die bestimmte Religion”. Hegel G. W. F. Filosofiya religii. V 2 t. T. 1 [Philosophy of religion. In 2 vol. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 66 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 66]): 203–530. (in Russian).

Hegel G. V. F. (1977) Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. Dritter Teil. Die Wissenschaft des Geistes. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 75 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 75]). (in Russian).

Kant I. (1907) Kritik der reinen Vernunft (tr. by N. O. Lossky). St. Petersburg: Tipografiya M. M. Stasyulevicha. (in Russian).

Kant I. (1964b) “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”. Kant I. Soch.: v 6 t. T. 3 [Works in 6 vol. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 6 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 6]). (in Russian).

Kant I. (1965) «Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können». Kant I. Soch.: v 6 t. T. 4. Ch. 1 [Works in 6 vol. Vol. 4. Part 1]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 14 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 14]): 67–210. (in Russian).

Kant I. (1966а) «Kritik der Urteilskraft». Kant I. Soch.: v 6 t. T. 5 [Works in 6 vol. Vol. 5]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 16 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 16]): 161–527. (in Russian).

Kant I. (1966б) «Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht». Kant I. Soch.: v 6 t. T. 6 [Works in 6 vol. Vol. 6]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 17 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 17]): 349–588. (in Russian).

Kissel M. A. (1982) Hegel i sovremennyj mir [Hegel and modern world]. Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU. (in Russian).

Marx W. (1981) Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes. Die Bestimmung ihrer Idee in “Vorrede” und “Einleitung”. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

McTaggart J. E. (1908) “The Unreality of Time”. Mind. A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. Vol. 17. Issue 4: 457–474.

Motroshilova N. V. (1984) Put’ Hegelya k Nauke Logike. Formirovanie principov sistemnosti i istorizma [Hegel’s way to “Science of Logic”. Formation of principles of systematicity and historism]. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).

Pöggeler O. (1973) Hegels Idee einer Phänomenologie des Geistes. Freiburg; München: Verlag Karl Albert.

Svasyan K. A. (2001) Filosofskoe mirovozzrenie Gete [The philosophical world view of Goethe]. Moscow: Evidentis. (in Russian).

Timofeev A. I. (2000) Issledovanie osnovanii bytiya cheloveka v klassicheskoi nemetskoi filosofii [Examination of the grounds of being of the human in the classic German philosophy]. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SUAI. (in Russian).

Tokmachev K. Yu. (2009) “Ponyatie vremeni u Dekarta” [The notion of time by Descartes]. Sud’ba evropejskogo proekta vremeni [The fate of European project of time] (ed. by O. K. Rumyantsev). Moscow: Progress–Tradiciya: 80–93. (in Russian).

Fichte I. G. (1993) “Grundlage des gesamten Wissenschaftslehre”. Fichte I. G. Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh. T. 1 [Works in two volumes. Vol. 1]. St. Petersburg: Mifril: 65–337. (in Russian).

Heidegger M. (1997) Sein und Zeit. Moscow: Ad Marginem. (in Russian).

Heidegger M. (2015) “Erläuterungen der ‘Einleitung’ zu Hegels ‘Phänomenologie des Geistes’” (1942). Heidegger M. Hegel. 1. Die Negativität. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Hegel aus dem Ansatz in der Negativität (1938–39,1941). 2. Erläuterungen der “Einleitung” zu Hegels “Phänomenologie des Geistes” (1942). St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal: 119–273. (in Russian).

Holz H. (1984) “Ob ‘analogiyah opyta’ u Kanta” [On “analogies of experience” by Kant]. “Kritika chistogo razuma” Kanta i sovremennost’ [Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” and modernity] (ed. by V.A. Steinberg). Riga: Zinatne: 49–54. (in Russian).

Hutt V. P. (1987) “Hegel i Dostoevsky: k voprosu o vliyanii idej Gegelya na tvorchestvo Dostoevskogo)” [Hegel and Dostoyevsky: On the issue of influence of Hegel’s ideas on Dostoyevsky’s creative work]. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vyp. 787. K istorii vospriyatiya zapadnoj filosofii v Rossii (Trudy po filosofii. № 33) [Bulletin of Tartu State University. No. 787. On the history of reception of the Western philosophy in Russia (Works on philosophy. No. 33)]: 91–103. (in Russian).

© Alexander Timofeev, 2019