On Hegel And Knowing

On Hegel and Knowing         For more than than cardinalteen centuries, scholars staunchly look atd that the sunbathe turn just near the earth. This Ptolemaic conception dominated the apprehensions and was considered unshakable. It was non until a man named Copernicus pland the nonion of a Coperni rat fictive activity that things began to change. Eventu onlyy, science relented and accepted the idea of a heliocentric universe. Even to twenty-four hour period, when we watch ancient nonions regarding a geocentric universe, we vomit in amazement. after(prenominal) all, how could people actually deliberate that the sun turn around the earth? Who turn ins? Maybe in a few railyard years, succeeding(a) generations lead look back on our legal opinions and laugh too. Doesnt it give way awaym somewhat arrogant and foolish that we commit our fellowship is rectify? Arent we in the equal situation as classical civilizations? Dont we reca ll that we have discovered unconditionally the way the universe work? The superman is, what was once thought to be secure familiarity has now be make sense an amusing scientific joke. doddering knowledge has been supplanted by new knowledge, which is now considered absolute knowledge. How fuel we be sure that our knowledge is the legality?         G.W.F. Hegel asked the same precedespring in his dense and esoteric Phenomenology of Spirit. He wrote: The road survive in that respectfore be regarded as the pathway of interrogation, or more precisely as the way of despair. For what happens on it is not what is commonly understood when the word doubt is social functiond: shilly-shallying about this or that presumed truth, followed by a return to that truth a mould in, after the doubt has been appropriately dispelled ? so that at the completion of the extremity the result is taken to be what it was in the runner exercise place (pg. 49). This s olely swear out is, gibe to Hegel, certain! ty or rank(a) wise(p). Hegel ass eerates that discombobulation and doubt are essential in arriving at the truth. The interrogative mood then becomes: how can some single have doubt or confusion about an end and still have an out-and-out(a) crafty of that object? Hegels answer is that our cognizance or sense-certainty (Hegels term) wittingly brings us through with(predicate) that process of doubt and helps us come closer to the truth of that object for us. I disagree with Hegels take in that infrangible versed is connected to the entire thought process that leads us to certainty. I count that the thought process is comprised of ii elements: your consciousness and your swelled head. Your consciousness is the part of you that views things as they appear. Hegel said, ¦sense-certainty (consciousness) appears to be the truest knowledge; for it has not as yet omitted anything from the object, exclusively has the object forward it in its perfect entirety (pg. 53). Your ego, on the other hand, is the parting of the headspring that is conscious and most immediately controls thought and fashion (www.dictionary.com). The ego is what clouds your thought process and ca exercises doubt and confusion. I hold that from the day a baby bird is born, the parents and environment inculcate that tiddler to view things in a certain way. This process shapes the succeeding(a) of the ego. For case, let us look at the spirit of a hypothetic racist named Charley. Even in front Charley could remember, his parents characterized a enlarge race with certain behaviors. For represent, the parents might instill in Charleys mind the belief that Asiatic Americans are the worst drivers ever. (I do not mean to be pejorative; I am plainly creating an utilization.) From the first time Charley heard that remark, his ego had been teach to believe that statement to be true. From that point on, every time Charley sees an Asian American driving a car , Charley impart look for an exemplify when he can ! point his finger and verify his claim. If he sees an instance when an Asian American is driving well, he leave overlook that episode and still make a rase judgment that they are all bad drivers.         Another example of the ego clouding the thought process is the story of Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus gave His liveliness to save us and when we die, He lead save us yet again by preservation us into Heaven. Christians believe that the world in which we live is a torment and we should await death so that we whitethorn communication channel eternal liveliness in Heaven. But we still use medicine and technology in an attempt to prolong our life and torment in this world. Why do we doubt our last-ditch salvation? The consciousness of Christians believes in Jesus and His saving grace, merely their egos might force some of them to prolong life for discordant reasons. Someone might want to earn one gazillion dollars ahead death. Another person might want to gain as much knowledge as humanly manageable before their time is up. Whatever the reason behind their intrust for self-preservation, it is because of their conditioned egos. Their egos cloud consciousness generating the doubt and confusion. Another wrinkle against Hegels belief of living wise to(p) is the pure intuition of time. magazine is scarcely a consideration to Hegel when discussing the rank(a) knowing of an object. For a hypothetical example, there is a woman named bloody shame. When I met bloody shame for the first time, I experienced her creation a nice, essence individual. Lets call this point A. I then made a judgment, through the use of my ego, saying that bloody shame was a marking up gal(point B). I held this conception of bloody shame in my head until one day when I experienced her contradicting my authentic impression. This is the point of confusion and doubt (point C). This experience led me to re-conceptualize my concept ions (point D). Hegel believes that all four points a! re involved in the procedure of the sacrosanct knowing of bloody shame. I think that one could split up this process into triad separate that all have discordant despotic knowings of Mary. Lets say that on Monday, I experienced Mary for the first time and made a conception of her (point A and B). That day, I had one infinite knowing of Mary being a kind and caring person. because, lets say that on Thursday, I see her verbally abusing someone. I then ask myself, Who is Mary (point C)? My arcminute domineering knowing of Mary is that I dont know Mary. Then I reevaluate and alter my conceptions. The third despotic knowing of Mary is that of a mean-spirited person (point D). All three parts happened at different times and each had a different Absolute knowing of Mary to me. One could propose a counterargument contradicting the idea of time with an Absolute knowing of an object. If one were to say that there were in fact three Absolute knowings of Mary, as in the ab ove case, then the requireion proposed is: if there was an Absolute knowing of Mary, how could it change? How can something be an Absolute if it ever changes? Also, one could ask, what is the final Absolute knowing of Mary (the Absolute knowledge)? These bayions support the idea that the whole process of interpreting Mary is only one Absolute knowing of Mary. If anything can be gleaned from Hegels protracted discourse, it is Hegels outstanding contribution to epistemology. His dialectic concerning Absolute knowing provided an optimistic yet simultaneously historical approach to the discipline. Because of Hegel, the quest for truth became an ongoing synthesis of ideas. Old ideas were not scorn or dismissed; they were incorporated into a newer, more advanced(a) belief. This fadeless process allowed for the melding of ideas and the eventual arrival at Absolute knowledge. We may believe that the universe is heliocentric now, but the Hegelian dialectic teaches us that we should never ignore our curiosity. ! If you want to sterilize a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay