Hegel's Master/Slave Dialectic

Our reading from Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind can be divided into two related parts. In part one, Hegel begins with a discussion of self-consciousness, which is easiest to talk about in terms of "Person A" and "Person B" (although Hegel does not use this terminology). Hegel argues that Person A's self-consciousness only exists because he is "recognized" by Person B (paragraph 178). Person A doesn't see Person B as a self-consciousness in his own right, but only as a reflection of himself; in other words, Person B isn't real to Person A (179). Person A and Person B need each other for recognition, but are not yet aware of this (182-184). Because they are unwilling to acknowledge that their self-consciousnesses are interdependent, they engage in a life and death struggle in an effort to achieve autonomy (187). This struggle to the death is necessary because it puts both Person A and Person B's status as a conscious being at risk. Because Person A and Person B realize that in killing one another, they actually kill themselves, they decide the struggle to the death is futile.

So, Person A (now the Master) decides to enslave Person B (now the slave) in an effort to assure that he is recognized by another. Hegel argues the master is an independent being who lives only for himself, while the slave, or bondsman, is dependent and lives for another (189). The bondsman is considered a thing to the master and is subordinate. At the same time, the master forces the bondsman to make things that the master can enjoy (190). However, because the bondsman has the creative power to make things, over time he becomes more independent through his work. He thus finds recognition away from his master, and finds a "mind of his own" (195-96).

For those of you who want to read more about Hegel and his historical context, check out Susan Buck-Morss, "Hegel and Haiti," Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26, No.4 (2000). You can access this online by logging into JSTOR through the Gelman Library website.

Burke, Hegel, and Responses to the French Revolution

Here are some things to consider prior to coming to section tomorrow.

Why does Burke dislike the French Revolution? Take into account that Burke wrote the Reflections in 1790, prior to the mass executions during the Terror.
Would Burke approve of the conservative settlement at the Congress of Vienna in 1815?
How is Hegel inspired by the revolutions in France and in Haiti?
Why is the bondsman more successful than the lord at gaining recognition?
Are we all in lord/servant relationships?

A word of advice about Hegel: his writing is a little convoluted, but his ideas are relatively simple. Try to at least get the main idea of each paragraph.

PS--Sorry for the late posting tonight. My internet access at home has been really patchy over the last two days!

Wollstonecraft: 18th-century libertine?

I found the following article interesting in light of the fact that in Vindication, Wollstonecraft seems to focus on the restraint of desires and passions in favor of reason and education. It seems that Wollstonecraft was actually more of a rebel than the Vindication would suggest!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/wollstonecraft_01.shtml

Also, check out this short review of a book that links Rousseau with Robespierre and the English Romantic writers including Mary Wollstonecraft.

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511036248

Writings of the Revolutions

Consider these questions when reading the documents from the American and French Revolutions, as well as Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women.

How does each author define the nation? Who should be included and why?
What differences between the American and French Revolutions emerge from the documents? Similarities? What is the goal of the Revolution in each case?
How do Wollstonecraft and Robespierre radicalize revolutionary thought? Is there a difference between a radical and an extremist?
What sort of comparisons can you make between this week's reading and Kant?

Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Kant’s view of morality is guided by his belief that moral truth can only be known through the exercise of our own reason. One of the ways we can ascertain how to act morally in any given situation is to apply Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the rule whereby only those principles that can become universal law should guide your actions (p. 14-15). For example, a deranged murderer comes to your house and asks you where he might find your neighbor, whom he intends to kill upon sight. Kant would say that, despite the damage that might befall your neighbor if you tell the deranged murdered where he is, you should nevertheless tell the murderer the truth. To lie to the murderer would be immoral, because lying can be taken to be a maxim that nobody would want to apply universally. For Kant, whatever our desires, inclinations, and goals might be do not make any difference in our moral decision-making. Though acting according to the categorical imperative is always the goal for Kant, he realizes that we also have one foot in the “world of sense,” in which we follow our own nature and desires. (54-55)
Because the categorical imperative is not applicable to every action we undertake in our daily lives, Kant sets forth the idea of the hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperatives are actions that one takes out of practical necessity as a means to attain a certain goal. For example, if you want to get a good job someday, you should go to a good university like GW. (Or, one which is more applicable to my household at the moment: if you want to get rid of the flies in your kitchen, you should probably clean out your rancid trashcan). In Kant’s view of the hypothetical imperative, we act on our desires and inclinations in order to achieve a certain goal that we find beneficial to ourselves.
In other words, the categorical imperative tells us to do x no matter our present circumstances, whereas the hypothetical imperative tells us we can do x, y, or z depending on what situation we might find ourselves in at the moment.