On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Chuck Grimes wrote:
> In any event, I was trying to figure out what ever gave Butler the
> idea she was writing about reality? Where does this obscure nonsense
> come from? So, I when out to look for Hegel's Phenomenology of the
> Mind, which has the section on Bondsmen and Lords.
(But he couldn't find a copy and blew all his money on Other Things, hence this post)
Hey Chuck--
Thought I'd try to give an explication of Hegel's Master/Slave thing, and, armed with my admittedly dubious exegesis, maybe we PLOPPERS can move onto looking more specifically at Chpt. 1. Sorry I've been so remiss in in my duties, I'm an irresponsible fuckwit. I'm supplementing my reading of the *Phenomology* with Acton's *Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Edwards, ed.) article since it's been years since I've read Hegel.This description is prob. going to be more Acton than Hegel.
The starting point for the master slave relation is that of self-concsciousness to itself and others. Self-consciousness does not exist unless it is acknowledged by others, and it is through that others' acknowledgement that it can acknowledge itself. it seems that self-consciousness exists in a plurality of self-consciousnesses, each of which is trying to force other self-consciousnesses to acknowledge it. there's an intersting connection between the self and the other. Since the other is needed to constitute the self-kn., each self-kn. is trying to subdue others and make those others part of itself.
The following is from Acton--he puts it much more nicely than i can:
"No individual will rest satisfied with a conquest that fails to secure the conscious acknowledgement of [others.] Hence, there is a struggle for both power and recognition. In this struggle some will take greater risks than their competitors, those who risk the least will become the slaves or bondsmen of those who face death by risking their lives. In order to preserve his/her life, the slave submits to the master, who regards the dlave as nothing more than a means to his/her own design. The slave is forced to work, whereas the master can enjoy leisure in the knowledge that the slave is reshaping the natural world to provide the products of his labor for the master to consume. Thus, the master's leisure prevents him from experiencing the negativity of nature, whereas the slave, in working, creates. The master, in consuming, destroys; the slave, in working, creates. But the master's consumption depends on the slave's work and is thus impermenant, whereas the slave's labour passes into things that have a permanent existence....
Acton on the unhappy consciousness
Unhappy conciousness is a step beyond the master/slave consciousness. No longer is the mind trying to master that which is around it, but it is rather trying to master itself, saying, "It is in thinking that I am free because I am not in another but remain completely with myself alone." This stoicism dissipates into skepticism (according to Acton, I'm not following here), because, while the stoic finds freedom in being a rational, thinking being, the skeptic goes further and dissolves all these categories. This is for Hegel the unhappy consciousness, an individual divided within himself, conscious of isolation while attributing all that is good to the activity of God. This is a stage on the way to a higher form of self-mastery.
Hope this was helpful, frances.