IV. Self-consciousness
Original German
1807 101
IV. Die Wahrheit der Gewiſsheit seiner selbst.
166 In den bisherigen Weisen der Gewiſsheit ist dem Bewuſstseyn das Wahre, etwas anderes, als es selbst. Der Begriff dieses Wahren verschwindet aber in der Erfahrung von ihm; wie der Gegenstand unmittelbar an sich war, das Seyende der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit, das concrete Ding der Wahrnehmung, die Krafft des Verstandes, so erweist er sich vielmehr nicht in Wahrheit zu seyn, sondern diſs Ansich ergibt sich als eine Weise, wie er nur für ein anderes ist; der Begriff von ihm hebt sich an dem wirklichen Gegenstande auf, oder die erste unmittelbare Vorstellung in der Erfahrung, und die Gewiſsheit ging in der Wahrheit verloren. Nunmehr aber ist diſs entstanden, was in diesen frühern Verhältnissen nicht zu Stande kam, nemlich eine Gewiſsheit, welche ihrer Wahrheit gleich ist, denn die Gewiſsheit ist sich selbst ihr Gegenstand, und das Bewuſstseyn ist sich selbst das Wahre. Es ist darin zwar auch ein Andersseyn; das Bewuſstseyn unterscheidet nemlich, aber ein solches, das für es 1807 102 zugleich ein nicht unterschiedenes ist. Nennen wir Begriff, die Bewegung des Wissens, den Gegenstand aber, das Wissen als ruhige Einheit, oder als Ich, so sehen wir, daſs nicht nur für uns, sondern für das Wissen selbst, der Gegenstand dem Begriffe entspricht. — Oder auf die andere Weise, den Begriff das genannt, was der Gegenstand ansich ist, den Gegenstand aber das, was er als Gegenstand, oder für ein anderes ist, so erhellt, daſs das Ansichseyn, und das für ein anderes seyn dasselbe ist; denn das Ansich ist das Bewuſstseyn; es ist aber ebenso dasjenige, für welches ein anderes (das Ansich) ist; und es ist für es, daſs das Ansich des Gegenstandes, und das Seyn desselben für ein anderes dasselbe ist; Ich ist der Inhalt der Beziehung, und das Beziehen selbst; es ist es selbst gegen ein anderes, und greifft zugleich über diſs andre über, das für es ebenso nur es selbst ist.
167 Mit dem Selbstbewuſstseyn sind wir also nun in das einheimische Reich der Wahrheit eingetreten. Es ist zu sehen, wie die Gestalt des Selbstbewuſstseyns zunächst auftritt. Betrachten wir diese neue Gestalt des Wissens, das Wissen von sich selbst, im Verhältnisse zu dem Vorhergehenden, dem Wissen von einem Andern, so ist diſs zwar verschwunden; aber seine Momente haben sich zugleich eben so aufbewahrt; und der Verlust besteht darin, daſs sie hier vorhanden sind, wie sie an sich sind. Das Seyn der Meynung, die Einzelnheit und die ihr 1807 103 entgegengesetzte Allgemeinheit der Wahrnehmung, so wie das leere Innere des Verstandes, sind nicht mehr als Wesen sondern als Momente des Selbstbewuſstseyns, das heiſst als Abstractionen oder Unterschiede, welche für das Bewuſstseyn selbst zugleich nichtig, oder keine Unterschiede und rein verschwindende Wesen sind. Es scheint also nur das Hauptmoment selbst verloren gegangen zu seyn, nemlich das einfache selbstständige Bestehen für das Bewuſstseyn. Aber in der That ist das Selbstbewuſstseyn die Reflexion aus dem Seyn der sinnlichen und wahrgenommenen Welt, und wesentlich die Rückkehr aus dem Andersseyn. Es ist als Selbstbewuſstseyn Bewegung; aber indem es nur sich selbst als sich selbst von sich unterscheidet, so ist ihm der Unterschied, unmittelbar als ein Andersseyn aufgehoben; der Unterschied ist nicht, und es nur die bewegungslose Tavtologie des: Ich bin Ich; indem ihm der Unterschied nicht auch die Gestalt des Seyns hat, ist es nicht Selbstbewuſstseyn. Es ist hiemit für es das Andersseyn, als ein Seyn, oder als unterschiedenes Moment; aber es ist für es auch die Einheit seiner selbst mit diesem Unterschiede, als zweytes unterschiedenes Moment. Mit jenem ersten Momente ist das Selbstbewuſstseyn als Bewuſstseyn, und für es die ganze Ausbreitung der sinnlichen Welt erhalten; aber zugleich nur als auf das zweyte Moment, die Einheit des Selbstbewuſstseyns mit sich selbst, bezogen; und sie ist hiemit für es ein Bestehen, welches aber nur Erscheinung, oder 1807 104 Unterschied ist, der an sich kein Seyn hat. Dieser Gegensatz seiner Erscheinung und seiner Wahrheit hat aber nur die Wahrheit, nemlich die Einheit des Selbstbewuſstseyns mit sich selbst, zu seinem Wesen; diese muſs ihm wesentlich werden; das heiſst, es ist Begierde überhaupt. Das Bewuſstseyn hat als Selbstbewuſstseyn nunmehr einen gedoppelten Gegenstand, den einen, den unmittelbaren, den Gegenstand der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit, und des Wahrnehmens, der aber für es mit dem Charakter des negativen bezeichnet ist, und den zweyten, nemlich sich selbst, welcher das wahre Wesen, und zunächst nur erst im Gegensatze des ersten vorhanden ist. Das Selbstbewuſstseyn stellt sich hierin als die Bewegung dar, worin dieser Gegensatz aufgehoben, und ihm die Gleichheit seiner selbst mit sich wird.
168 Der Gegenstand, welcher für das Selbstbewuſstseyn das negative ist, ist aber seinerseits für uns oder an sich ebenso in sich zurückgegangen als das Bewuſstseyn andererseits. Er ist durch diese Reflexion in sich Leben geworden. Was das Selbstbewuſstseyn als seyend von sich unterscheidet, hat auch insofern, als es seyend gesetzt ist, nicht bloſs die Weise der sinnlichen Gewiſsheit und der Wahrnehmung an ihm, sondern es ist in sich reflectirtes Seyn, und der Gegenstand der unmittelbaren Begierde ist ein Lebendiges. Denn das Ansich, oder das allgemeine Resultat des Verhältnisses des Verstandes zu dem 1807 105 Innern der Dinge, ist das Unterscheiden des Nichtzuunterscheidenden, oder die Einheit des Unterschiednen. Diese Einheit aber ist ebensosehr, wie wir gesehen, ihr Abstoſsen von sich selbst, und dieser Begriff entzweyt sich in den Gegensatz des Selbstbewuſstseyns und des Lebens; jenes die Einheit, für welche die unendliche Einheit der Unterschiede ist; dieses aber ist nur diese Einheit selbst, so daſs sie nicht zugleich für sich selbst ist. So selbstständig also das Bewuſstseyn, ebenso selbstständig ist ansich sein Gegenstand. Das Selbstbewuſstseyn, welches schlechthin fürsich ist, und seinen Gegenstand unmittelbar mit dem Charakter des negativen bezeichnet, oder zunächst Begierde ist, wird daher vielmehr die Erfahrung der Selbständigkeit desselben machen.
169 Die Bestimmung des Lebens, wie sie sich aus dem Begriffe oder dem allgemeinen Resultate ergibt, mit welchem wir in diese Sphäre eintreten, ist hinreichend es zu bezeichnen, ohne daſs seine Natur weiter daraus zu entwickeln wäre; ihr Kreis beschlieſst sich in folgenden Momenten. Das Wesen ist die Unendlichkeit als das Aufgehobenseyn aller Unterschiede, die reine achsendrehende Bewegung, die Ruhe ihrer selbst als absolutunruhigen Unendlichkeit; die Selbstständigkeit selbst, in welcher die Unterschiede der Bewegung aufgelöst sind; das einfache Wesen der Zeit, das in dieser Sichselbstgleichheit die gediegene Gestalt des Raumes hat. Die 1807 106 Unterschiede sind aber an diesem einfachen allgemeinen Medium ebensosehr, als Unterschiede; denn diese allgemeine Flüssigkeit hat ihre negative Natur, nur indem sie ein Aufheben derselben ist; aber sie kann die unterschiednen nicht aufheben, wenn sie nicht ein Bestehen haben. Ebendiese Flüssigkeit ist als die sichselbstgleiche Selbstständigkeit, selbst das Bestehen, oder die Substanz derselben, worin sie also als unterschiedene Glieder und fürsichseyende Theile sind. Das Seyn hat nicht mehr die Bedeutung der Abstraction des Seyns, noch ihre reine Wesenheit, der Abstraction der Allgemeinheit; sondern ihr Seyn ist eben jene einfache flüssige Substanz der reinen Bewegung in sich selbst. Der Unterschied dieser Glieder gegeneinander aber als Unterschied besteht überhaupt in keiner anderer Bestimmtheit, als der Bestimmtheit der Momente der Unendlichkeit oder der reinen Bewegung selbst.
170 Die selbststandigen Glieder sind fürsich; dieses Fürsichseyn ist aber vielmehr ebenso unmittelbar ihre Reflexion in die Einheit, als diese Einheit die Entzweyung in die selbstständigen Gestalten ist. Die Einheit ist entzweyt, weil sie absolut negative oder unendliche Einheit ist; und weil sie das Bestehen ist, so hat auch der Unterschied Selbstständigkeit nur an ihr. Diese Selbständigkeit der Gestalt erscheint als ein bestimmtes, für anderes, denn sie ist ein entzweytes; und das Aufheben der Entzweyung geschieht insofern durch ein anderes. 1807 107 Aber es ist ebensosehr an ihr selbst; denn eben jene Flüssigkeit ist die Substanz der selbstständigen Gestalten; diese Substanz aber ist unendlich; die Gestalt ist darum in ihrem Bestehen selbst die Entzweyung, oder das Aufheben ihres Fürsichseyns.
171 Unterscheiden wir die hierin enthaltenen Momente näher, so sehen wir, daſs wir zum ersten Momente das Bestehen der selbstständigen Gestalten; oder die Unterdrückung dessen haben, was das unterscheiden an sich ist, nemlich nicht an sich zu seyn und kein Bestehen zu haben. Das zweyte Moment aber ist die Unterwerfung jenes Bestehens unter die Unendlichkeit des Unterschiedes. Im ersten Momente ist die bestehende Gestalt; als fürsichseyend, oder in ihrer Bestimmtheit unendliche Substanz tritt sie gegen die allgemeine Substanz auf, verläugnet diese Flüssigkeit und Continuität mit ihr und behauptet sich als nicht in diesem Allgemeinen aufgelöst, sondern vielmehr als durch die Absonderung von dieser ihrer unorganischen Natur, und durch das Aufzehren derselben sich erhaltend. Das Leben in dem allgemeinen flüssigen Medium, ein ruhiges auseinanderlegen des Gestaltens wird eben dadurch zur Bewegung derselben, oder zum Leben als Proceſs. Die einfache allgemeine Flüssigkeit ist das Ansich, und der Unterschied der Gestalten, das Andere. Aber diese Flässigkeit wird selbst durch diesen Unterschied das Andere; denn sie ist itzt für den Unterschied, welcher an und für sich selbst, und daher 1807 108 die unendliche Bewegung ist, von welcher jenes ruhige Medium aufgezehrt wird, das Leben als Lebendiges. — Diese Verkehrung aber ist darum wieder die Verkehrtheit an sich selbst; was aufgezehrt wird, ist das Wesen; die auf Kosten des Allgemeinen sich erhaltende, und das Gefühl ihrer Einheit mit sich selbst sich gebende Individualität hebt gerade damit ihren Gegensatz des Andern, durch welchen sie für sich ist, auf; die Einheit mit sich selbst, welche sie sich gibt, ist gerade die Flüssigkeit der Unterschiede, oder die allgemeine Auflösung. Aber umgekehrt ist das Aufheben des individuellen Bestehens ebenso das Erzeugen desselben. Denn da das Wesen der individuellen Gestalt, das allgemeine Leben, und das für sich seyende an sich einfache Substanz ist, so hebt es, indem es das Andre in sich setzt, diese seine Einfachheit, oder sein Wesen auf, d. h. es entzweyt sie, und diſs Entzweyen der unterschiedslosen Flüssigkeit ist eben das Setzen der Individualität. Die einfache Substanz des Lebens also ist die Entzweyung ihrer selbst in Gestalten, und zugleich die Auflösung dieser bestehenden Unterschiede; und die Auflösung der Entzweyung ist ebensosehr Entzweyen oder ein Gliedern. Es fallen damit die beyden Seiten der ganzen Bewegung, welche unterschieden wurden, nemlich die in dem allgemeinen Medium der Selbstständigkeit ruhig auseinandergelegte Gestaltung, und der Proceſs des Lebens ineinander; der letztere ist eben so sehr Gestaltung, als er das Aufheben der Gestalt 1807 109 ist; und das erste, die Gestaltung ist eben so sehr ein Aufheben, als sie die Gliederung ist. Das flüssige Element ist selbst nur die Abstraction des Wesens, oder es ist nur als Gestalt wirklich; und daſs es sich gliedert, ist wieder ein Entzweyen des Gegliederten, oder ein Auflösen desselben. Dieser ganze Kreislauff macht das Leben aus, weder das, was zuerst ausgesprochen wird, die unmittelbare Continuität und Gediegenheit seines Wesens, noch die bestehende Gestalt und das für sich seyende Discrete, noch der reine Proceſs derselben, noch auch das einfache zusammenfassen dieser Momente, sondern das sich entwickelnde, und seine Entwicklung auflösende und in dieser Bewegung sich einfach erhaltende Ganze.
172 Indem von der ersten unmittelbaren Einheit ausgegangen, und durch die Momente der Gestaltung und des Processes hindurch zur Einheit dieser beyden Momente, und damit wieder zur ersten einfachen Substanz zurückgekehrt wird, so ist diese reflectirte Einheit eine andere, als die erste. Gegen jene unmittelbare, oder als ein Seyn ausgesprochene, ist diese zweyte, die allgemeine, welche alle diese Momente als aufgehobne in ihr hat. Sie ist die einfache Gattung, welche in der Bewegung des Lebens selbst nicht für sich als diſs einfache existirt; sondern in diesem Resultate verweist das Leben auf ein anderes, als es ist, nemlich auf das Bewuſstseyn, für welches es als diese Einheit, oder als Gattung, ist.
1807 110
173 Diſs andere Leben aber, für welches die Gattung als solche und welches für sich selbst Gattung ist, das Selbstbewuſstseyn, ist sich zunächst nur als dieses einfache Wesen, und hat sich als reines Ich zum Gegenstande; in seiner Erfahrung, die nun zu betrachten ist, wird sich ihm dieser abstracte Gegenstand bereichern, und die Entfaltung erhalten, welche wir an dem Leben gesehen haben.
174 Das einfache Ich ist diese Gattung oder das einfache allgemeine, für welches die Unterschiede keine sind, nur, indem es negatives Wesen der gestalteten selbstständigen Momente ist; und das Selbstbewuſstseyn hiemit seiner selbst nur gewiſs, durch das Aufheben dieses andern, das sich ihm als selbstständiges Leben darstellt; es ist Begierde. Der Nichtigkeit dieses andern gewiſs setzt es für sich dieselbe als seine Wahrheit, vernichtet den selbstständigen Gegenstand und gibt sich dadurch die Gewiſsheit seiner selbst, als wahre Gewiſsheit, als solche, welche ihm selbst auf gegenständliche Weise geworden ist.
175 In dieser Befriedigung aber macht es die Erfahrung von der Selbstständigkeit seines Gegenstandes. Die Begierde und die in ihrer Befriedigung erreichte Gewiſsheit seiner selbst ist bedingt durch ihn, denn sie ist durch Aufheben dieses Andern; daſs diſs Aufheben sey, muſs diſs Andere seyn. Das Selbstbewuſstseyn vermag also durch seine negative Beziehung, ihn nicht aufzuheben; es erzeugt ihn darum vielmehr wieder, so wie die Begierde. Es ist in der 1807 111 That ein anderes, als das Selbstbewuſstseyn, das Wesen der Begierde; und durch diese Erfahrung ist ihm selbst diese Wahrheit geworden. Zugleich aber ist es ebenso absolut für sich, und ist diſs nur durch aufneben des Gegenstandes, und es muſs ihm seine Befriedigung werden, denn es ist die Wahrheit. Um der Selbstständigkeit des Gegenstandes willen kann es daher zur Befriedigung nur gelangen, indem dieser selbst die Negation an ihm vollzieht; und er muſs diese Negation seiner selbst an sich vollziehen, denn er ist an sich das negative, und muſs für das andre seyn, was er ist. Indem er die Negation an sich selbst ist, und darin zugleich selbstständig ist, ist er Bewuſstseyn. An dem Leben, welches der Gegenstand der Begierde ist, ist die Negation entweder an einem andern, nemlich an der Begierde, oder als Bestimmtheit gegen eine andere gleichgültige Gestalt, oder als seine unorganische allgemeine Natur. Diese allgemeine selbstständige Natur aber an der die Negation als absolute ist, ist die Gattung als solche, oder als Selbstbcwuſstseyn. Das Selbstbewuſstseyn erreicht seine Befriedigung nur in einem andern Selbstbewuſstseyn.
176 In diesen drey Momenten ist erst der Begriff des Selbstbewuſstseyns vollendet; a) reines ununterschiedenes Ich ist sein erster unmittelbarer Gegenstand. b) Diese Unmittelbarkeit ist aber selbst absolute Vermittlung, sie ist nur als Aufheben des selbstständigen Gegenstandes, oder sie ist Begierde. Die 1807 112 Befriedigung der Begierde ist zwar die Reflexion des Selbstbewuſstseyns in sich selbst, oder die zur Wahrheit gewordene Gewiſsheit. c) Aber die Wahrheit derselben ist vielmehr die gedoppelte Reflexion, die Verdopplung des Selbstbewuſstseyns. Es ist ein Gegenstand für das Bewuſstseyn, welcher an sich selbst sein Andersseyn oder den Unterschied als einen nichtigen setzt, und darin selbstständig ist. Die unterschiedene nur lebendige Gestalt hebt wohl im Processe des Lebens selbst auch ihre Selbstständigkeit auf, aber sie hört mit ihrem Unterschiede auf, zu seyn, was sie ist; der Gegenstand des Selbstbewuſstseyns ist aber ebenso selbstständig in dieser Negativität seiner selbst; und damit ist er für sich selbst Gattung, allgemeine Flüssigkeit in der Eigenheit seiner Absonderung; er ist lebendiges Selbstbewuſstseyn.
177 Es ist ein Selbstbewuſstseyn für ein Selbstbewuſstseyn. Erst hiedurch ist es in der That; denn erst hierin wird für es die Einheit seiner selbst in seinem Andersseyn; Ich, das der Gegenstand seines Begriffs ist, ist in der That nicht Gegenstand; der Gegenstand der Begierde aber ist nur selbstständig, denn er ist die allgemeine unvertilgbare Substanz, das flüssige sichselbstgleiche Wesen. Indem ein Sebstbewuſstseyn der Gegenstand ist, ist er ebenso wohl Ich, wie Gegenstand. — Hiemit ist schon der Begriff des Geistes für uns vorhanden. Was für das Bewuſstseyn weiter wird, ist die Erfahrung, was der 1807 113 Geist ist, diese absolute Substanz, welche in der vollkommenen Freyheit und Selbstständigkeit ihres Gegensatzes, nemlich verschiedener für sich seyender Selbstbewuſstseyn, die Einheit derselben ist; Ich, das Wir, und Wir, das Ich ist. Das Bewuſstseyn hat erst in dem Selbstbewuſstseyn, als dem Begriffe des Geistes, seinen Wendungspunkt, auf dem es aus dem farbigten Scheine des sinnlichen Disseits, und aus der leeren Nacht des übersinnlichen Jenseits in den geistigen Tag der Gegenwart einschreitet.
1807 114
A. Selbstständigkeit und Unselbstständigkeit des Selbstbewuſstseyns; Herrschafft und Knechtschafft.
178 Das Selbstbewuſstseyn ist an und für sich, indem, und dadurch, daſs es für ein anderes an und für sich ist; d. h. es ist nur als ein Anerkanntes. Der Begriff dieser seiner Einheit in seiner Verdopplung, der sich im Selbstbewuſstseyn realisirenden Unendlichkeit, ist eine vielseitige und vieldeutige Verschränkung, so daſs die Momente derselben theils genau auseinandergehalten, theils in dieser Unterscheidung zugleich auch als nicht unterschieden, oder immer in ihrer entgegengesetzten Bedeutung genommen und erkannt werden müssen. Die Doppelsinnigkeit des unterschiedenen liegt in dem Wesen des Selbstbewuſstseyns, unendlich, oder unmittelbar das Gegentheil der Bestimmtheit, in der es gesetzt ist, zu seyn. Die Auseinanderlegung des Begriffs dieser geistigen Einheit in ihrer Verdopplung stellt uns die Bewegung des Anerkennens dar.
179 Es ist für das Selbstbewuſstseyn ein anderes Selbstbewuſstseyn; es ist auſser sich gekommen. 1807 115 Diſs hat die gedoppelte Bedeutung, erstlich, es hat sich selbst verloren, denn es findet sich als ein anderes Wesen; zweytens, es hat damit das Andere aufgehoben, denn es sicht auch nicht das andere als Wesen, sondern sich selbst im andern.
180 Es muſs diſs sein andersseyn aufheben; diſs ist das Aufheben des ersten Doppelsinnes, und darum selbst ein zweyter Doppelsinn; erstlich, es muſs darauf gehen, das andere selbstständige Wesen aufzuheben, um dadurch seiner als des Wesens gewiſs zu werden; zweytens geht es hiemit darauf, sich selbst aufzuheben, denn diſs andere ist es selbst.
181 Diſs doppelsinnige Aufheben seines doppelsinnigen Andersseyns ist ebenso eine doppelsinnige Rückkehr in sich selbst; denn erstlich erhält es durch das Aufheben sich selbst zurück; denn es wird sich wieder gleich durch das Aufheben seines Andersseyns; zweytens aber gibt es das andere Selbstbewuſstseyn ihm wieder ebenso zurück, denn es war sich im andern, es hebt diſs sein Seyn im andern auf, entläſst also das andere wieder frey.
182 Diese Bewegung des Selbstbewuſstseyns in der Beziehung auf ein anderes Selbstbewuſstseyn ist aber auf diese Weise vorgestellt worden, als das Thun des Einen; aber dieses Thun des einen hat selbst die gedoppelte Bedeutung, ebensowohl sein Thun als das Thun des Andern zu seyn; denn das andere ist ebenso selbstständig, in sich beschlossen, und es ist nichts in ihm, was nicht durch es selbst ist. Das erste 1807 116 hat den Gegenstand nicht vor sich, wie er nur für die Begierde zunächst ist, sondern einen für sich seyenden selbstständigen, über welchen es darum nichts für sich vermag, wenn er nicht an sich selbst diſs thut, was es an ihm thut. Die Bewegung ist also schlechthin die gedoppelte beyder Selbstbewuſstseyn. Jedes sieht das andre dasselbe thun, was es thut; jedes thut selbst, was es an das andre fodert; und thut darum was es thut, auch nur insofern als das andre dasselbe thut; das einseitige Thun wäre unnütz; weil, was geschehen soll, nur durch beyde zu Stande kommen kann.
183 Das Thun ist also nicht nur insofern doppelsinnig, als es ein Thun ebensowohl gegen sich als gegen das andre, sondern auch insofern, als es ungetrennt ebensowohl das Thun des Einen als des Andern ist.
184 In dieser Bewegung sehen wir sich den Proceſs wiederholen, der sich als Spiel der Kräffte darstellte, aber im Bewuſstseyn. Was in jenem für uns war, ist hier für die Extreme selbst. Die Mitte ist das Selbstbewuſstseyn, welches sich in die Extreme zersetzt, und jedes Extrem ist diese Austauschung seiner Bestimmtheit, und absoluter Uebergang in das entgegengesetzte. Als Bewuſstseyn aber kommt es wohl auſser sich, jedoch ist es in seinem auſsersichseyn zugleich in sich zurückgehalten, für sich, und sein Auſsersich ist für es. Es ist für es, daſs es unmittelbar anderes Bewuſstseyn ist, und 1807 117 nicht ist; und ebenso, daſs diſs Andere nur für sich ist, indem es sich als für sich seyendes aufhebt, und nur im Fürsichseyn des andern für sich ist. Jedes ist dem andern die Mitte, durch welche jedes sich mit sich selbst vermittelt und zusammenschlieſst, und jedes sich und dem andern unmittelbares für sich seyendes Wesen, welches zugleich nur durch diese Vermittlung so für sich ist. Sie anerkennen sich, als gegenseitig sich anerkennend.
185 Dieser reine Begriff des Anerkennens, der Verdopplung des Selbstbewuſstseyns in seiner Einheit, ist nun zu betrachten, wie sein Proceſs für das Selbstbewuſstseyn erscheint. Er wird zuerst die Seite der Ungleichheit beyder darstellen, oder das Heraustreten der Mitte in die Extreme, welche als Extreme sich entgegengesetzt, und das eine nur anerkanntes, der andre nur anerkennendes ist.
186 Das Selbstbewuſstseyn ist zunächst einfaches Fürsichseyn, sichselbstgleich durch das Ausschlieſsen alles andern aus sich; sein Wesen und absoluter Gegenstand ist ihm Ich; und es ist in dieser Unmittelbarkeit, oder in diesem Seyn seines Fürsichseyns, Einzelnes. Was anderes für es ist, ist als unwesentlicher, mit dem Charakter des negativen bezeichneter Gegenstand. Aber das Andre ist auch ein Selbstbewuſstseyn; es tritt ein Individuum, einem Individuum gegenüber auf. So unmittelbar auftretend sind sie für einander in der Weise gen einer Gegenstände; selbstständige Gestalten, in das Seyn 1807 118 des Lebens, — denn als Leben hat sich hier der seyende Gegenstand bestimmt — versenkte Bewuſstseyn, welche für einander die Bewegung der absoluten Abstraction, alles unmittelbare Seyn zu vertilgen, und nur das rein negative Seyn des sichselbstgleichen Bewuſstseyns zu seyn, noch nicht vollbracht, oder sich einander noch nicht als reines Fürsichseyn, das heiſst, als Selbstbewuſstseyn dargestellt haben. Jedes ist wohl seiner selbst gewiſs, aber nicht des andern, und darum hat seine eigne Gewiſsheit von sich noch keine Wahrheit; denn seine Wahrheit wäre nur, daſs sein eignes Fürsichseyn, sich ihm als selbstständiger Gegenstand, oder, was dasselbe ist, der Gegenstand sich als diese reine Gewiſsheit seiner selbst dargestellt hätte. Diſs aber ist nach dem Begriffe des Anerkennens nicht möglich, als daſs wie der andere für ihn, so er für den andern, jeder an sich selbst durch sein eigenes Thun, und wieder durch das Thun des andern, diese reine Abstraction des Fürsichseyns vollbringt.
187 Die Darstellung seiner aber als der reinen Abstraction des Selbstbewuſstseyns besteht darin, sich als reine Negation seiner gegenständlichen Weise zu zeigen, oder es zu zeigen, an kein bestimmtes Daseyn geknüpft, an die allgemeine Einzelnheit des Daseyns überhaupt nicht, nicht an das Leben geknüpft zu seyn. Diese Darstellung ist, das gedoppelte Thun; Thun des andern, und Thun durch sich selbst. Insofern es Thun des andern ist, geht also jeder auf 1807 119 den Tod des andern. Darin aber ist auch das zweyte, das Thun durch sich selbst, vorhanden; denn jenes schlieſst das daransetzen des eignen Lebens in sich. Das Verhältniſs beyder Selbstbewuſstseyn ist also so bestimmt, daſs sie sich selbst und einander durch den Kampf auf Leben und Tod bewähren. — Sie müssen in diesen Kampf gehen, denn sie müssen die Gewiſsheit ihrer selbst, für sich zu seyn, zur Wahrheit an dem andern, und an ihnen selbst erheben. Und es ist allein das daransetzen des Lebens, wodurch die Freyheit, wodurch es bewährt wird, daſs dem Selbstbewuſstseyn nicht das Seyn, nicht die unmittelbare Weise, wie es auftritt, nicht sein Versenktseyn in die Ausbreitung des Lebens, — das Wesen, sondern daſs an ihm nichts vorhanden, was für es nicht verschwindendes Moment wäre, daſs es nur reines Fürsichseyn ist. Das Individuum, welches das Leben nicht gewagt hat, kann wohl als Person anerkannt werden; aber es hat die Wahrheit dieses Anerkanntseyns als eines selbstständigen Selbstbewuſstseyns nicht erreicht. Ebenso muſs jedes auf den Tod des andern gehen, wie es sein Leben daransetzt; denn das Andre gilt ihm nicht mehr als es selbst; sein Wesen stellt sich ihm als ein Andres dar, es ist auſser sich; es muſs sein Auſsersichseyn aufheben; das Andre ist mannichfaltig befangenes und seyendes Bewuſstseyn; es muſs sein Andersseyn als reines Fürsichseyn oder als absolute Negation anschauen.
1807 120
188 Diese Bewährung aber durch den Tod hebt eben so die Wahrheit, welche daraus hervorgehen sollte, als damit auch die Gewiſsheit seiner selbst überhaupt auf; denn wie das Leben die natürliche Position des Bewuſstseyns, die Selbstständigkeit ohne die absolute Negativität, ist, so ist er die natürliche Negation desselben, die Negation ohne die Selbständigkeit, welche also ohne die geforderte Bedeutung des Anerkennens bleibt. Durch den Tod ist zwar die Gewiſsheit geworden, daſs beyde ihr Leben wagten, und es an ihnen und an dem andern verachteten; aber nicht für die, welche diesen Kampf bestanden, Sie heben ihr in dieser fremden Wesenheit, welches das natürliche Daseyn ist, gesetztes Bewuſstseyn, oder sie heben sich, und werden, als die für sich seyn wollenden Extreme aufgehoben. Es verschwindet aber damit aus dem Spiele des Wechsels das wesentliche Moment, sich in Extreme entgegengesetzter Bestimmtheiten zu zersetzen; und die Mitte fällt in eine todte Einheit zusammen, welche in todte, bloſs seyende, nicht entgegengesetzte Extreme zersetzt ist; und die beyden geben und empfangen sich nicht gegenseitig von einander durch das Bewuſstseyn zurück, sondern lassen einander nur gleichgültig, als Dinge, frey. Ihre That ist die abstracte Negation, nicht die Negation des Bewuſstseyns, welches so aufhebt, daſs es das aufgehobene auftewahrt und erhält, und hiemit sein Aufgehobenwerden überlebt.
1807 121
189 In dieser Erfahrung wird es dem Selbstbewuſstseyn, daſs ihm das Leben so wesentlich als das reine Selbstbewuſstseyn ist. Im unmittelbaren Selbstbewuſstseyn ist das einfache Ich der absolute Gegenstand, welcher aber für uns oder an sich die absolute Vermittlung ist, und die bestehende Selbstständigkeit zum wesentlichen Momente hat. Die Auflösung jener einfachen Einheit ist das Resultat der ersten Erfahrung; es ist durch sie ein reines Selbstbewuſstseyn, und ein Bewuſstseyn gesetzt, welches nicht rein für sich, sondern für ein anderes, das heiſst, als seyendes Bewuſstseyn oder Bewuſstseyn in der Gestalt der Dingheit ist. Beyde Momente sind wesentlich; — da sie zunächst ungleich und entgegengesetzt sind, und ihre Reflexion in die Einheit sich noch nicht ergeben hat, so sind sie als zwey entgegengesetzte Gestalten des Bewuſstseyns; die eine das selbstständige, welchem das Fürsichseyn, die andere das unselbstständige, dem das Leben oder das Seyn für ein anderes, das Wesen ist; jenes ist der Herr, diſs der Knecht.
190 Der Herr ist das für sich seyende Bewuſstseyn, aber nicht mehr nur der Begriff desselben, sondern für sich seyendes Bewuſstseyn, welches durch ein anderes Bewuſstseyn mit sich vermittelt ist, nemlich durch ein solches, zu dessen Wesen es gehört, daſs es mit selbststäntligem Seyn oder der Dingheit überhaupt synthesirt ist. Der Herr bezieht sich auf diese beyden Momente, auf ein Ding, als solches, 1807 122 den Gegenstand der Begierde, und auf das Bewuſstseyn, dem die Dingheit das wesentliche ist; und, indem er a) als Begriff des Selbstbewuſstseyns, unmittelbare Beziehung des Fürsichseyns ist, aber b) nunmehr zugleich als Vermittlung, oder als ein Fürsichseyn, welches nur durch ein anderes für sich ist, so bezieht er sich a) unmittelbar auf beyde, und b) mittelbar auf jedes durch das andere. Der Herr bezieht sich auf den Knecht mittelbar durch das selbststandige Seyn; denn eben hieran ist der Knecht gehalten; es ist seine Kette, von der er im Kampfe nicht abstrahiren konnte, und darum sich als unselbstständig, seine Selbstständigkeit in der Dingheit zu haben, erwies. Der Herr aber ist die Macht über diſs Seyn, denn er erwies im Kampfe, daſs es ihm nur als ein negatives gilt; indem er die Macht darüber, diſs Seyn aber die Macht über den Andern ist, so hat er in diesem Schlusse diesen andern unter sich. Ebenso bezieht sich der Herr mittelbar durch den Knecht auf das Ding; der Knecht bezieht sich als Selbstbewuſstseyn überhaupt, auf das Ding auch negativ und hebt es auf; aber es ist zugleich selbstständig für ihn, und er kann darum durch sein Negiren nicht bis zur Vernichtung mit ihm fertig werden, oder er bearbeitet es nur. Dem Herrn dagegen wird durch diese Vermittlung die unmittelbare Beziehung als die reine Negation desselben, oder der Genuſs; was der Begierde nicht gelang, gelingt ihm, damit fertig zu werden, und im Genusse sich zu 1807 123 befrietligen. Der Begierde gelang diſs nicht wegen der Selbstständigkeit des Dinges; der Herr aber, der den Knecht zwischen es und sich eingeschoben, schlieſst sich dadurch nur mit der Unselbstständigkeit des Dinges zusammen, und genieſst es rein; die Seite der Selbstständigkeit aber überläſst er dem Knechte, der es bearbeitet.
191 In diesen beyden Momenten wird für den Herrn sein Anerkanntseyn durch ein anderes Bewuſstseyn; denn dieses setzt sich in ihnen als unwesentliches, einmal in der Bearbeitung des Dings, das anderemal in der Abhängigkeit von einem bestimmten Daseyn; in beyden kann es nicht über das Seyn Meister werden und zur absoluten Negation gelangen. Es ist also hierin diſs Moment des Anerkennens vorhanden, daſs das andere Bewuſstseyn sich als Fürsichseyn aufhebt, und hiemit selbst das thut, was das erste gegen es thut. Ebenso das andere Moment, daſs diſs Thun des Zweyten das eigne Thun des ersten ist; denn, was der Knecht thut, ist eigentlich Thun des Herrn; diesem ist nur das Fürsichseyn, das Wesen; er ist die reine negative Macht, der das Ding Nichts ist, und also das reine wesentliche Thun in diesem Verhältnisse; der Knecht aber ein nicht reines, sondern unwesentliches Thun. Aber zum eigentlichen Anerkennen fehlt das Moment, daſs was der Herr gegen den andern thut, er auch gegen sich selbst, und was der Knecht gegen sich, er auch gegen den andern thue. Es ist 1807 124 dadurch ein einseitiges und ungleiches Anerkennen entstanden.
192 Das unwesentliche Bewuſstseyn ist hierin für den Herrn der Gegenstand, welcher die Wahrheit der Gewiſsheit seiner selbst ausmacht. Aber es erhellt, daſs dieser Gegenstand seinem Begriffe nicht entspricht, sondern daſs darin, worin der Herr sich vollbracht hat, ihm vielmehr ganz etwas anderes geworden, als ein selbstständiges Bewuſstseyn. Nicht ein solches ist für ihn, sondern vielmehr ein unselbstständiges; er also nicht des Fürsichseyns, als den Wahrheit gewiſs, sondern seine Wahrheit ist vielmehr das unwesentliche Bewuſstseyn, und das unwesentliche Thun desselben.
193 Die Wahrheit des selbstständigen Bewuſstseyns ist demnach das knechtische Bewuſstseyn. Dieses erscheint zwar zunächst auſser sich und nicht als die Wahrheit des Selbstbewuſstseyn. Aber wie die Herrschafft zeigte, daſs ihr Wesen das verkehrte dessen ist, was sie seyn will, so wird auch wohl die Knechtschafft vielmehr in ihrer Vollbringung zum Gegentheile dessen werden, was sie unmittelbar ist; sie wird als in sich zurückgedrängtes Bewuſstseyn in sich gehen, und zur wahren Selbstständigkeit sich umkehren.
194 Wir sahen nur, was die Knechtschafft im Verhältnisse der Herrschafft ist. Aber sie ist Selbstbewuſstseyn, und was sie hienach an und für sich selbst ist, ist nun zu betrachten. Zunächst ist für die 1807 125 Knechtschafft der Herr das Wesen; also das selbststandige für sich seyende Bewuſstseyn ist ihr die Wahrheit, die jedoch für sie noch nicht an ihr ist. Allein sie hat diese Wahrheit der reinen Negativität und des Fürsichseyns in der That an ihr selbst; denn sie hat dieses Wesen an ihr erfahren. Diſs Bewuſstseyn hat nemlich nicht um dieses oder jenes, noch für diesen oder jenen Augenblick Angst gehabt, sondern um sein ganzes Wesen; denn es hat die Furcht des Todes, des absoluten Herrn, empfunden. Es ist darin innerlich aufgelöst worden, hat durchaus in sich selbst erzittert, und alles fixe hat in ihm gebebt. Diese reine allgemeine Bewegung, das absolute flüssigwerden alles Bestehens ist aber das einfache Wesen des Selbstbewuſstseyns, die absolute Negativität, das reine Fürsichseyn, das hiemit an diesem Bewuſstseyn ist. Diſs Moment des reinen Fürsichseyn ist auch für es, denn im Herrn ist es ihm sein Gegenstand. Es ist ferner nicht nur diese allgemeine Auflösung überhaupt, sondern im Dienen vollbringt es sie wirklich; es hebt darin in allen einzelnen Momenten seine Anhänglichkeit an natürliches Daseyn auf, und arbeitet dasselbe hinweg.
195 Das Gefuhl der absoluten Macht aber überhaupt, und im einzelnen des Dienstes ist nur die Auflösung an sich, und ob zwar die Furcht des Herrn der Anfang der Wei heit ist, so ist das Bewuſstseyn darin für es selbst, nicht das fürsichseyn. Durch die Arbeit kömmt es aber zu sich selbst. In dem Momente, 1807 126 welches der Begierde im Bewuſstseyn des Herrn entspricht, schien dem dienenden Bewuſstseyn zwar die Seite der unwesentlichen Beziehung auf das Ding zugefallen zu seyn, indem das Ding darin seine Selbstständigkeit behält. Die Begierde hat sich das reine Negiren des Gegenstandes, und dadurch das unvermischte Selbstgefühl vorbehalten. Diese Befriedigung ist aber deſswegen selbst nur ein Verschwinden, denn es fehlt ihr die gegenständliche Seite oder das Bestehen. Die Arbeit hingegen ist gehemmte Begierde, aufgehaltenes Verschwinden, oder sie bildet. Die negative Beziehung auf den Gegenstand wird zur Form desselben, und zu einem bleibenden; weil eben dem arbeitenden der Gegenstand Selbstständigkeit hat. Diese negative Mitte oder das formirende Thun, ist zugleich die Einzelnheit oder das reine Fürsichseyn des Bewuſstseyns, welches nun in der Arbeit auſser es in das Element des Bleibens tritt; das arbeitende Bewuſstseyn kommt also hiedurch zur Anschauung des selbstständigen Seyns, als seiner selbst.
196 Das Formiren hat aber nicht nur diese positive Bedeutung, daſs das dienende Bewuſstseyn sich darin als reines Fürsichseyn zum Seyenden wird; sondern auch die negative, gegen sein erstes Moment, die Furcht. Denn in dem Bilden des Dinges wird ihm die eigne Negativität, sein Fürsichseyn, nur dadurch zum Gegenstande, daſs es die entgegengesetzte seyende Form aufhebt. Aber diſs gegenständliche Negative ist gerade das fremde Wesen, vor welchem es 1807 127 gezittert hat. Nun aber zerstört es diſs fremde Negative, setzt sich als ein solches in das Element des Bleibens; und wird hiedurch für sich selbst, ein für sich seyendes. Im Herrn ist ihm das Fürsichseyn ein underes oder nur für es; in der Furcht ist das Fürsichseyn an ihm selbst; in dem Bilden wird das Fürsichseyn als sein eignes für es, und es kömmt zum Bewuſstseyn, daſs es selbst an und für sich ist. Die Form wird dadurch, daſs sie hinausgesetzt wird, ihm nicht ein anderes als es; denn eben sie ist sein reines Fürsichseyn, das ihm darin zur Wahrheit wird. Es wird also durch diſs Wiederfinden seiner durch sich selbst eigner Sinn, gerade in der Arbeit, worin es nur fremder Sinn zu seyn schien. — Es sind zu dieser Reflexion die beyden Momente, der Furcht und des Dienstes überhaupt, so wie des Bildens nothwendig, und zugleich beyde auf eine allgemeine Weise. Ohne die Zucht des Dienstes und Gehorsams bleibt die Furcht beym formellen stehen, und verbreitet sich nicht über die bewuſste Wirklichkeit des Daseyns. Ohne das Bilden bleibt die Furcht innerlich und stumm, und das Bewuſstseyn wird nicht für es selbst. Formirt das Bewuſstseyn ohne die erste absolute Furcht, so ist es nur ein eitler eigner Sinn; denn seine Form oder Negativität ist nicht die Negativität an sich; und sein Formiren kann ihm daher nicht das Bewuſstseyn seiner als des Wesens geben. Hat es nicht die absolute Furcht, sondern nur einige Angst ausgestanden, so ist das negative Wesen ihm ein 1807 128 äuſserliches geblieben, seine Substanz ist von ihm nicht durch und durch angesteckt. Indem nicht alle Erfüllungen seines natürlichen Bewuſstseyns wankend geworden, gehört es an sich noch bestimmtem Seyn an; der eigne Sinn ist Eigensinn, eine Freyheit, welche noch innerhalb der Knechtschafft stehen bleibt. So wenig ihm die reine Form zum Wesen werden kann, so wenig ist sie, als Ausbreitung über das einzelne betrachlet, allgemeines Bilden, absoluter Begriff, sondern eine Geschicklichkeit, welche nur über einiges, nicht über die allgemeine Macht und das ganze gegenständliche Wesen mächtig ist.
1807 129
B. Freyheit des Selbstbewuſstseyns; Stoicismus, Skepticismus, und das unglückliche Bewuſstseyn.
197 Dem selbstständigen Selbstbewuſstseyn ist einestheils nur die reine Abstraction des Ich sein Wesen, und anderntheils, indem sie sich ausbildet und sich Unterschiede gibt, wird diſs Unterscheiden ihm nicht zum gegenständlichen ansichseyenden Wesen; diſs Selbstbewuſstseyn wird also nicht ein in seiner Einfachheit sich wahrhafft unterscheidendes, oder in dieser absoluten Unterscheidung sich gleichbleibendes Ich. Das in sich zurückgedrängte Bewuſstseyn hingegen wird sich im Formiren als Form der gebildeten Dinge zum Gegenstande, und an dem Herrn schaut es das Fürsichseyn zugleich als Bewuſstseyn an. Aber dem dienenden Bewuſstseyn als solchem fallen diese beyden Momente, — seiner selbst als selbstständigen Gegenstandes, und dieses Gegenstandes als eines Bewuſstseyns, und hiemit seines eigenen Wesens auseinander. Indem aber für uns oder an sich die Form und das Fürsichseyn dasselbe ist, und im 1807 130 Begriffe des selbstständigen Bewuſstseyns das Ansichseyn das Bewuſstseyn ist, so ist die Seite des Ansichseyns oder der Dingheit, welche die Form in der Arbeit erhielt, keine andere Substanz, als das Bewuſstseyn, und es ist uns eine neue Gestalt des Selbstbewuſstseyns geworden; ein Bewuſstseyn, welches sich als die Unendlichkeit, oder reine Bewegung des Bewuſstseyns das Wesen ist; welches denkt, oder freyes Selbstbewuſstseyn ist. Denn nicht als abstractes Ich, sondern als Ich, welches zugleich die Bedeutung des Ansichseyns hat, sich Gegenstand seyn, oder zum gegenständlichen Wesen sich so verhalten, daſs es die Bedeutung des Fürsichseyns des Bewuſstseyns hat, für welches es ist, heiſst denken. — Dem Denken bewegt sich der Gegenstand nicht in Vorstellungen, oder Gestalten, sondern in Begriffen, das heiſst in einem unterschiednen Ansichseyn, welches unmittelbar für das Bewuſstseyn kein unterschiednes von ihm ist. Das Vorgestellte, Gestaltete, Seyende, als solches, hat die Form etwas anders zu seyn, als das Bewuſstseyn; ein Begriff aber ist zugleich ein Seyendes, — und dieser Unterschied, insofern er an ihm selbst ist, ist sein bestimmter Inhalt, — aber darin daſs dieser Inhalt ein begriffener zugleich ist, bleibt es sich seiner Einheit mit diesem bestimmten und unterschiedenen Seyenden unmittelbar bewuſst; nicht wie bey der Vorstellung, worin es erst noch besonders sich zu erinnern hat, daſs diſs seine Vorstellung sey; sondern der Begriff ist mir unmittelbar mein 1807 131 Begriff. Im Denken bin Ich frey, weil ich nicht in einem Andern bin, sondern schlechthin bey mir selbst bleibe, und der Gegenstand, der mir das Wesen ist, in ungetrennter Einheit mein Fürmichseyn ist; und meine Bewegung in Begriffen ist eine Bewegung in mir selbst. — Es ist aber in dieser Bestimmung dieser Gestalt des Selbstbewuſstseyns, wesentlich diſs festzuhalten, daſs sie denkendes Bewuſstseyn überhaupt oder ihr Gegenstand, unmittelbare Einheit des Ansichseyns und des Fürsichseyns ist. Das sich gleichnamige Bewuſstseyn, das sich von sich selbst abstöſst, wird sich ansichseyendes Element; aber es ist sich diſs Element nur erst als allgemeines Wesen überhaupt, nicht als diſs gegenständliche Wesen in der Entwicklung und Bewegung seines mannichfaltigen Seyns.
198 Diese Freyheit des Selbstbewuſstseyns hat bekanntlich, indem sie als ihrer bewuſste Erscheinung in der Geschichte des Geistes aufgetreten ist, Stoicismus geheiſsen. Sein Princip ist, daſs das Bewuſstseyn denkendes Wesen, und etwas nur Wesenheit für dasselbe hat, oder wahr und gut für es ist, als das Bewuſstseyn sich darin als denkendes Wesen verhält.
199 Die vielfache sich in sich unterscheidende Ausbreitung, Vereinzelung und Verwicklung des Lebens ist der Gegenstand, gegen welchen die Begierde und die Arbeit thätig ist. Diſs vielfache Thun hat sich nun in die einfache Unterscheidung 1807 132 zusammengezogen, welche in der reinen Bewegung des Denkens ist. Nicht der Unterschied, welcher sich als bestimmtes Ding, oder als Bewuſstseyn eines bestimmten natürlichen Daseyns, als ein Gefühl, oder als Begierde und Zweck für dieselbe, ob er durch das eigene oder durch ein fremdes Bewuſstseyn gesetzt sey, hat mehr Wesenheit, sondern allein der Unterschied, der ein gedachter, oder unmittelbar nicht von Mir unterschieden ist. Diſs Bewuſstseyn ist somit negativ gegen das Verhältniſs der Herrschafft und Knechtschafft; sein Thun ist, in der Herrschafft nicht seine Wahrheit an dem Knechte zu haben, noch als Knecht seine Wahrheit an dem Willen des Herrn und an seinem Dienen, sondern wie auf dem Throne so in den Fesseln, in aller Abhängigkeit seines einzelnen Daseyns frey zu seyn, und die Leblosigkeit sich zu erhalten, welche sich beständig aus der Bewegung des Daseyns, aus dem Wirken wie aus dem Leiden, in die einfache Wesenheit des Gedankens zurückzieht. Der Eigensinn ist die Freyheit, die an eine Einzelnheit sich befestigt und innerhalb der Knechtschafft steht, der Stoicismus aber die Freyheit, welche unmittelbar immer aus ihr her, und in die reine Allgemeinheit des Gedankens zurückkömmt; als allgemeine Form des Weltgeistes nur in der Zeit einer allgemeinen Furcht und Knechtschafft, aber auch einer allgemeinen Bildung auftreten konnte, welche das Bilden bis zum Denken gesteigert hatte.
1807 133
200 Ob nun zwar diesem Selbstbewuſstseyn weder ein anderes als es, noch die reine Abstraction des Ich das Wesen ist, sondern Ich, welches das Andersseyn, aber als gedachten Unterschied an ihm hat, so daſs es in seinem Andersseyn unmittelbar in sich zurückgekehrt ist; so ist diſs sein Wesen zugleich nur ein abstractes Wesen. Die Freyheit des Selbstbewuſstseyns ist gleichgültig gegen das natürliche Daseyn, hat darum dieses ebenso frey entlassen, und die Reflexion ist eine gedoppelte. Die Freyheit im Gedanken hat nur den reinen Gedanken zu ihrer Wahrheit, die ohne die Erfüllung des Lebens ist; und ist also auch nur der Begriff der Freyheit, nicht die lebendige Freyheit selbst; denn ihr ist nur erst das Denken überhaupt das Wesen, die Form als solche, welche von der Selbstständigkeit der Dinge weg, in sich zurückgegangen ist. Indem aber die Individualität als handelnd sich lebendig darstellen, oder als denkend die lebendige Welt als ein System des Gedankens fassen sollte, so müſste in dem Gedanken selbst für jene Ausbreitung ein Inhalt dessen, was gut, für diese, was wahr ist, liegen; damit durchaus, in demjenigen, was für das Bewuſstseyn ist, kein anderes Ingrediens wäre, als der Begriff, der das Wesen ist. Allein so wie er hier als Abstraction von der Mannichfaltigkeit der Dinge sich abtrennt, hat er keinen Inhalt an ihm selbst, sondern einen gegebenen. Das Bewuſstseyn vertilgt den Inhalt wohl als ein fremdes Seyn, indem es ihn denkt; aber der 1807 134 Begriff ist bestimmter Begriff, und diese Bestimmtheit desselben ist das Fremde, das er an ihm hat. Der Stoicismus ist darum in Verlegenheit gekommen, als er, wie der Ausdruck war, nach dem Kriterium der Wahrheit überhaupt gefragt wurde, d. h. eigentlich nach einem Inhalte des Gedankens selbst. Auf die Frage an ihn, was gut und wahr ist, hat er wieder das inhaltslose Denken selbst zur Antwort gegeben; in der Vernünftigkeit soll das wahre und gute bestehen. Aber diese Sichselbstgleichheit des Denkens ist nur wieder die reine Form, in welcher sich nichts bestimmt; die allgemeinen Worte von dem Wahren und Guten, der Weisheit und der Tugend, bey welchen er stehen bleiben muſs, sind daher wohl im allgemeinen erhebend, aber weil sie in der That zu keiner Ausbreitung des Inhalts kommen können, fangen sie bald an, Langeweile zu machen.
201 Dieses denkende Bewuſstseyn so, wie es sich bestimmt hat, als die abstracte Freyheit, ist also nur die unvollendete Negation des Andersseyns; aus dem Daseyn nur in sich zurückgezogen hat es sich nicht als absolute Negation desselben an ihm vollbracht. Der Inhalt gilt ihm zwar nur als Gedanke, aber dabey auch als bestimmter, und die Bestimmtheit als solche zugleich.
202 Der Skepticismus ist die Realisirung desjenigen, wovon der Stoicismus nur der Begriff, — und die wirkliche Erfahrung, was die Freyheit des Gedankens 1807 135 ist; sie ist ansich das negative, und muſs sich so darstellen. Mit der Reflexion des Selbstbewuſstseyns in den einfachen Gedanken seiner selbst, ist ihr gegenüber in der That, aus der Unendlichkeit, das selbstständige Daseyn oder die bleibende Bestimmtheit herausgefallen; im Skepticisma wird nun für das Bewuſstseyn die gänzliche Unwesentlichkeit und Unselbstständigkeit dieses Andern; der Gedanke wird zu dem vollständigen das Seyn der vielfachbestimmten Welt vernichtenden Denken, und die Negativität des freyen Selbstbewuſstseyns wird sich an dieser mannichfaltigen Gestaltung des Lebens zur realen Negativität. — Es erheilt, daſs wie der Stoicismus dem Begriffe des selbstständigen Bewuſstseyns, das als Verhältniſs der Herrschafft und Knechtschafft erschien, entspricht, so entspricht der Skepticismus der Realisirung desselben, als der negativen Richtung auf das Andersseyn, der Begierde und der Arbeit. Aber wenn die Begierde und die Arbeit die Negation nicht für das Selbstbewuſstseyn ausführen konnten, so wird dagegen diese polemische Richtung gegen die vielfache Selbstständigkeit der Dinge von Erfolg seyn, weil sie als in sich vorher vollendetes freyes Selbstbewuſstseyn sich gegen sie kehrt; bestimmter, weil sie das Denken, oder die Unendlichkeit, an ihr selbst hat, und hierin die Selbstständigkeiten nach ihrem Unterschiede ihr nur als verschwindende Gröſsen sind. Die Unterschiede, welche im reinen Denken seiner selbst nur die 1807 136 Abstraction der Unterschiede sind, werden hier zu allen Unterschieden, und alles unterschiedene Seyn zu einem Unterschiede des Selbstbewuſstseyns.
203 Hiedurch hat sich das Thun des Skepticismus überhaupt, und die Weise desselben bestimmt. Er zeigt die dialektische Bewegung auf, welche die sinnliche Gewiſsheit, die Wahrnehmung und der Verstand ist; so wie auch die Unwesenheit desjenigen, was in dem Verhältnisse des Herrschens und des Dienens, und was für das abstracte Denken selbst, als bestimmtes gilt. Jenes Verhältniſs faſst eine bestimmte Weise zugleich in sich, in welcher auch sittliche Gesetze als Gebote der Herrschafft vorhanden sind; die Bestimmungen im abstracten Denken aber sind Begriffe der Wissenschafft, in welche sich das inhaltslose Denken ausbreitet, und den Begriff auf eine in der That nur äuſserliche Weise an das ihm selbstständige Seyn, das seinen Inhalt ausmacht, hängt und nur bestimmte Begriffe als geltende hat, es sey, daſs sie auch reine Abstractionen sind.
204 Das dialektische als negative Bewegung, wie sie unmittelbar ist, erscheint dem Bewuſstseyn zunächst als etwas, dem es preisgegeben, und das nicht durch es selbst ist. Als Skepticismus hingegen ist sie Moment des Selbstbewuſstseyns, welchem es nicht geschieht, daſs ihm, ohne zu wissen wie, sein Wahres und Reelles verschwindet, sondern welches in der Gewiſsheit seiner Freyheit, diſs andere für reell sich 1807 137 gebende selbst verschwinden läſst; nicht nur das gegenständliche als solches, sondern sein eignes Verhalten zu ihm, worin es als gegenständlich gilt, und geltend gemacht wird, also auch sein Wahrnehmen, so wie sein Befestigen dessen, was es in Gefahr ist zu verlieren, die Sophisterey, und sein aus sich bestimmtes und festgesetztes Wahres; durch welche selbstbewuſste Negation es die Gewiſsheit seiner Freyheit sich für sich selbst verschafft, die Erfahrung derselben hervorbringt, und sie dadurch zur Wahrheit erhebt. Was verschwindet, ist das Bestimmte, oder der Unterschied, der auf welche Weise, und woher es sey, als fester und unwandelbarer sich aufstellt. Er hat nichts bleibendes an ihm, und muſs dem Denken verschwinden, weil das unterschiedne eben diſs ist, nicht an ihm selbst zu seyn, sondern seine Wesenheit nur in einem Andern zu haben; das Denken aber ist die Einsicht in diese Natur des Unterschiednen, es ist das negative Wesen als einfaches.
205 Das skeptische Selbstbewuſstseyn erfährt also in dem Wandel alles dessen, was sich für es befestigen will, seine eigne Freyheit als durch es selbst sich gegeben und erhalten; es ist sich diese Ataraxie des sich selbst Denkens, die unwandelbare und wahrhaffte Gewiſsheit seiner selbst. Sie geht nicht aus einem Fremden, das seine vielfache Entwicklung in sich zusammenstürtzte, als ein Resultat hervor, welches sein Werden hinter sich hätte; sondern das Bewuſstseyn selbst ist die absolute dialektische Unruhe, 1807 138 dieses Gemische von sinnlichen und gedachten Vorstellungen, deren Unterschiede zusammenfallen, und deren Gleichheit sich ebenso, — denn sie ist selbst die Bestimmtheit gegen das Ungleiche — wieder auflöst. Diſs Bewuſstseyn ist aber eben hierin in der That, statt sichselbstgleiches Bewuſstseyn zu seyn, nur eine schlechthin zufällige Verwirrung, der Schwindel einer sich immer erzeugenden Unordnung. Es ist diſs für sich selbst; denn es selbst erhält und bringt diese sich bewegende Verwirrung hervor. Es bekennt sich darum auch dazu, es bekennt ein ganz zufälliges, einzelnes Bewuſstseyn zu seyn, — ein Bewuſstseyn, das empirisch ist, sich nach dem richtet, was keine Realität für es hat, dem gehorcht, was ihm kein Wesen ist, das thut und zur Wirklichkeit bringt, was ihm keine Wahrheit hat. Aber ebenso wie es sich auf diese Weise als einzelnes, zufälliges und in der That thierisches Leben, und verlornes Selbstbewuſstseyn gilt, macht es sich im Gegentheile auch wieder zum allgemeinen sichselbstgleichen; denn es ist die Negativität aller Einzelnheit und alles Unterschieds. Von dieser Sichselbstgleichheit oder in ihr selbst vielmehr fällt es wieder in jene Zufälligkeit und Verwirrung zurück, denn eben diese sich bewegende Negativität hat es nur mit einzelnem zu thun, und treibt sich mit zufälligem herum. Diſs Bewuſstseyn ist also diese bewuſstlose Faseley, von dem einen Extreme des sichselbstgleichen Selbstbewuſstseyns zum andern des 1807 139 zufälligen, verworrenen, und verwirrenden Bewuſstseyns hinüber und herüber zu gehen. Es selbst bringt diese beyden Gedanken seiner selbst nicht zusammen; es erkennt seine Freyheit einmal als Erhebung über alle Verwirrung und alle Zufälligkeit des Daseyns, und bekennt sich ebenso das andremal wieder als ein Zurückfallen in die Unwesentlichkeit und als ein Herumtreiben in ihr. Es läſst den unwesentlichen Inhalt in seinem Denken verschwinden, aber eben darin ist es das Bewuſstseyn eines unwesentlichen; es spricht das absolute Verschwinden aus, aber das Aussprechen ist, und diſs Bewuſstseyn ist das ausgesprochne Verschwinden; es spricht die Nichtigkeit des Sehens, Hörens, und sofort aus, und es sieht, hört, und sofort, selbst; es spricht die Nichtigkeit der sittlichen Wesenheiten aus, und macht sie selbst zu den Mächten seines Handelns. Sein Thun und seine Worte widersprechen sich immer, und ebenso hat es selbst das gedoppelte widersprechende Bewuſstseyn der Unwandelbarkeit und Gleichheit, und der völligen Zufälligkeit und Ungleichheit mit sich. Aber es hält diesen Widerspruch seiner selbst auseinander; und verhält sich darüber wie in seiner rein negativen Bewegung überhaupt. Wird ihm die Gleichheit aufgezeigt, so zeigt es die Ungleichheit auf; und indem ihm diese, die es eben ausgesprochen hat, itzt vorgehalten wird, so geht es zum aufzeigen der Gleichheit über; sein Gerede ist in der That ein Gezänke eigensinniger 1807 140 Jungen, deren einer A ſagt, wenn der andere B, und wieder B, wenn der andere A, und die sich durch den Widerspruch mit sich selbst die Freude erkauffen, miteinander im Widerspruche zu bleiben.
206 Im Skepticismus erfährt das Bewuſstseyn in Wahrheit sich als ein in sich selbst widersprechendes Bewuſstseyn; es geht aus dieser Erfahrung eine neue Gestalt hervor, welche die zwey Gedanken zusammenbringt, die der Skepticismus auseinander hält. Die Gedankenlosigkeit des Skepticismus über sich selbst muſs verschwinden, weil es in der That Ein Bewuſstseyn ist, welches diese beyden Weisen an ihm hat. Diese neue Gestalt ist hiedurch ein solches, welches für sich das gedoppelte Bewuſstseyn seiner, als des sich befreyenden, unwandelbaren und sichselbstgleichen, und seiner als des absolut sich verwirrenden und verkehrenden, — und das Bewuſstseyn dieses seines Widerspruchs ist. — Im Stoicismus ist das Selbstbewuſstseyn die einfache Freyheit seiner selbst; im Skepticismus realisirt sie sich, vernichtet die andere Seite des bestimmten Daseyns, aber verdoppelt sich vielmehr, und ist sich nun ein zweyfaches. Hiedurch ist die Verdopplung, welche früher an zwey einzelne, an den Herrn und den Knecht, sich vertheilte, in eines eingekehrt; die Verdopplung des Selbstbewuſstseyns in sich selbst, welche im Begriffe des Geistes wesentlich ist, ist hiemit vorhanden, aber noch nicht ihre Einheit und das unglückliche Bewuſstseyn ist das Bewuſstseyn 1807 141 seiner als des gedoppelten nur widersprechenden Wesens.
207 Dieses unglückliche, in sich entzweyte Bewuſstseyn muſs also, weil dieser Widerspruch seines Wesens sich Ein Bewuſstseyn ist, in dem einen Bewuſstseyn immer auch das andere haben, und so aus jedem unmittelbar, indem es zum Siege und zur Ruhe der Einheit gekommen zu seyn meynt, wieder daraus ausgetrieben werden. Seine wahre Rückkehr aber in sich selbst, oder seine Versöhnung mit sich wird den Begriff des lebendig gewordenen und in die Existenz getretenen Geistes darstellen, weil an ihm schon diſs ist, daſs es als Ein ungetheiltes Bewuſstseyn ein gedoppeltes ist; es selbst ist das Schauen eines Selbstbewuſstseyns in ein anderes, und es selbst ist beyde, und die Einheit beyder ist ihm auch das Wesen, aber es für sich ist sich noch nicht dieses Wesen selbst, noch nicht die Einheit beyder.
208 Indem es zunächst nur die unmittelbare Einheit beyder ist, aber für es nicht beyde dasselbe, sondern entgegengesetzte sind, so ist ihm das eine, nemlich das einfache unwandelbare, als das Wesen; das andere aber, das vielfache wandelbare, als das Unwesentliche. Beyde sind für es einander fremde Wesen; es selbst, weil es das Bewuſstseyn dieses Widerspruchs ist, stellt sich auf die Seite des wandelbaren Bewuſstseyns, und ist sich das unwesentliche; aber als Bewuſstseyn der Unwandelbarkeit, oder des einfachen Wesens, muſs es zugleich darauf gehen, 1807 142 sich von dem unwesentlichen, das heiſst, sich von sich selbst zu befreyen. Denn ob es für sich wohl nur das wandelbare, und das unwandelbare ihm ein Fremdes ist, so ist es selbst einfaches, und hiemit unwandelbares Bewuſstseyn, dessen hiemit als seines Wesens sich bewuſst, jedoch so, daſs es selbst für sich wieder nicht diſs Wesen ist. Die Stellung, welche es beyden gibt, kann daher nicht eine Gleichgülkeit derselben gegeneinander, d. i. nicht eine Gleichgültigkeit seiner selbst gegen das Unwandelbare seyn; sondern es ist unmittelbar selbst beyde, und es ist für es die Beziehung beyder als eine Beziehung des Wesens auf das Unwesen, so daſs diſs letztere aufzuheben ist, aber indem ihm beyde gleichwesentlich und widersprechend sind, ist es nur die widersprechende Bewegung, in welcher das Gegentheil nicht in seinem Gegentheil zur Ruhe kommt, sondern in ihm nur als Gegentheil sich neu erzeugt.
209 Es ist damit ein Kampf gegen einen Feind vorhanden, gegen welchen der Sieg vielmehr ein Unterliegen, das eine erreicht zu haben vielmehr der Verlust desselben in seinem Gegentheile ist. Das Bewuſstseyn des Lebens, seines Daseyns und Thuns ist nur der Schmerz über dieses Daseyn und Thun, denn es hat darin nur das Bewuſstseyn seines Gegentheils als des Wesens, und der eignen Nichtigkeit. Es geht in die Erhebung hieraus zum Unwandelbaren über. Aber diese Erhebung ist selbst diſs Bewuſstseyn; sie ist also unmittelbar das 1807 143 Bewuſstseyn des Gegentheils, nemlich seiner selbst als der Einzelnheit. Das Unwandelbare, das in das Bewuſstseyn tritt, ist ebendadurch zugleich von der Einzelnheit berührt, und nur mit dieser gegenwärtig; statt diese im Bewuſstseyn des Unwandelbaren vertilgt zu haben, geht sie darin immer nur hervor.
210 In dieser Bewegung aber erfährt es eben dieses Hervortreten der Einzelnheit am Unwandelbaren, und des Unwandelbaren an der Einzelnheit. Es wird für es die Einzelnheit überhaupt am unwandelbaren Wesen, und zugleich die seinige an ihm. Denn die Wahrheit dieser Bewegung ist eben das Einsseyn dieses gedoppelten Bewuſstseyns. Diese Einheit wird ihm, aber zunächst selbst eine solche, in welcher noch die Verschiedenheit beyder das Herrschende ist. Es ist dadurch die dreyfache Weise für dasselbe vorhanden, wie die Einzelnheit mit dem Unwandelbaren verknüpft ist; einmal geht es selbst sich wieder hervor als entgegengesetzt dem unwandelbaren Wesen; und es ist in den Anfang des Kampfs zurückgeworfen, welcher das Element des ganzen Vorhältnisses bleibt. Das andremal aber hat das Unwandelbare selbst an ihm die Einzelnheit für es; so daſs sie Gestalt des Unwandelbaren ist, an welches hiemit die ganze Weise der Existenz hinübertritt. Das drittemal findet es sich selbst als dieses Einzelne im Unwandelbaren. Das erste Unwandelbare ist ihm nur das fremde die Einzelnheit verurtheilende Wesen; 1807 144 indem das andre eine Gestalt der Einzelnheit wie es selbst ist, so wird es drittens zum Geiste, hat sich selbst darin zu finden die Freude, und wird sich seine Einzelnheit mit dem Allgemeinen versöhnt zu seyn bewuſst.
211 Was sich hier als Weise und Verhältniſs des Unwandelbaren darstellt, ergab sich als die Erfahrung, welche das entzweyte Selbstbewuſstseyn in seinem Unglücke macht. Diese Erfahrung ist nun zwar nicht seine einseitge Bewegung, denn es ist selbst unwandelbares Bewuſstseyn, dieses hiemit zugleich auch einzelnes Bewuſstseyn, und die Bewegung ebensowohl Bewegung des unwandelbaren Bewuſstseyns, das in ihr so sehr wie das andere auftritt; denn sie verläufft sich durch diese Momente, einmal unwandelbares dem einzelnen überhaupt, dann selbst einzelnes dem andern einzelnen entgegengesetzt, und endlich mit ihm Eins zu seyn. Aber diese Betrachtung, insofern sie uns angehört, ist hier unzeitig, denn bis itzt ist uns nur die Unwandelbarkeit als Unwandelbarkeit des Bewuſstseyns, welche deswegen nicht die wahre, sondern noch mit einem Gegensatze behafftete ist, nicht das Unwandelbare an und für sich selbst entstanden; wir wissen daher nicht, wie dieses sich verhalten wird. Was hier sich ergeben hat, ist nur diſs, daſs dem Bewuſstseyn, das hier unser Gegenstand ist, diese angezeigten Bestimmungen an dem Unwandelbaren erscheinen.
1807 145
212 Aus diesem Grunde behält also auch das unwandelbare Bewuſstseyn in seiner Gestaltung selbst den Charakter und die Grundlage des Entzweyt- und des Fürsichseyns gegen das einzelne Bewuſstseyn. Es ist hiemit für dieses, überhaupt ein Geschehen, daſs das Unwandelbare die Gestalt der Einzelnheit erhält; so wie es sich auch ihm entgegengesetzt nur findet, und also durch die Natur diſs Verhältniſs hat; daſs es sich endlich in ihm findet, erscheint ihm zum Theil zwar durch es selbst hervorgebracht, oder darum Statt zu haben, weil es selbst einzeln ist; aber ein Theil dieser Einheit als dem Unwandelbaren zugehörend, sowohl nach ihrer Entstehung, als insofern sie ist; und der Gegensatz bleibt in dieser Einheit selbst. In der That ist durch die Gestaltung des Unwandelbaren das Moment des Jenseits nicht nur geblieben, sondern vielmehr noch befestigt; denn wenn es durch die Gestalt der einzelnen Wirklichkeit ihm einerseits zwar näher gebracht zu seyn scheint, so ist es ihm andererseits nunmehr als ein undurchsichtiges sinnliches Eins, mit der ganzen Sprödigkeit eines Wirklichen, gegenüber; die Hoffnung mit ihm Eins zu werden, muſs Hoffnung, das heiſst, ohne Erfüllung und Gegenwart bleiben, denn zwischen ihr und der Erfüllung steht gerade die absolute Zufälligkeit oder unbewegliche Gleichgültigkeit, welche in der Gestaltung selbst, dem begründenden der Hoffnung, liegt. Durch die Natur des seyenden Eins, durch die Wirklichkeit, die es 1807 146 angezogen, geschieht es nothwendig, daſs es in der Zeit verschwunden, und im Raume und ferne gewesen ist, und schlechthin ferne bleibt.
213 Wenn zuerst der bloſse Begriff des entzweyten Bewuſstseyns sich so bestimmte, daſs es auf das Aufheben seiner als einzelnen und auf das Werden zum unwandelbaren Bewuſstseyn gehe, so hat sein Streben nunmehr diese Bestimmung, daſs es vielmehr sein Verhältniſs zu dem reinen ungestalteten Unwandelbaren aufhebe, und sich nur die Beziehung auf den gestalteten Unwandelbaren gebe. Denn das Einsseyn des Einzelnen mit dem Unwandelbaren ist ihm nunmehr Wesen und Gegenstand, wie im Begriffe nur das gestaltlose, abstracte Unwandelbare der wesentliche Gegenstand war; und das Verhältniſs dieses absoluten Entzweytseyns des Begriffes ist nun dasjenige, von welchem es sich wegzuwenden hat. Die zunächst auſsere Beziehung aber zu dem gestalteten Unwandelbaren als einem fremden Wirklichen hat es zum absoluten Einswerden zu erheben.
214 Die Bewegung, worin das unwesentliche Bewuſstseyn diſs Einsseyn zu erreichen strebt, ist selbst die dreyfache, nach dem dreyfachen Verhältnisse, welche es zu seinem gestalteten Jenseits haben wird; einmal als reines Bewuſstseyn; das andremal als einzelnes Wesen, welches sich als Begierde und Arbeit gegen die Wirklichkeit verhält; und zum dritten als Bewuſstseyn seines Fürsichseyns. — Wie diese drey Weisen seines Seyns in jenem allgemeinen 1807 147 Verhältnisse vorhanden und bestimmt sind, ist nun zu sehen.
215 Zuerst also es als reines Bewuſstseyn betrachtet, so scheint der gestaltete Unwandelbare, indem er für das reine Bewuſstseyn ist, gesetzt zu werden, wie er an und für sich selbst ist. Allein wie er an und für sich selbst ist, diſs ist, wie schon erinnert, noch nicht entstanden. Daſs er im Bewuſstseyn wäre, wie er an und für sich selbst ist, diſs müſste wohl von ihm vielmehr ausgehen, als von dem Bewuſstseyn; so aber ist diese seine Gegenwart hier nur erst einseitig durch das Bewuſstseyn vorhanden, und eben darum nicht vollkommen und wahrhafftig, sondern bleibt mit Unvollkommenheit oder einem Gegensatze beschwert.
216 Obgleich aber das unglückliche Bewuſstseyn also diese Gegenwart nicht besitzt, so ist es zugleich über das reine Denken, insofern dieses das abstracte von der Einzelnheit überhaupt wegsehende Denken des Stoicismus, und das nur unruhige Denken des Skepticismus, — in der That nur die Einzelnheit als der bewuſstlose Widerspruch und dessen rastlose Bewegung — ist; es ist über diese beyde hinaus, es bringt und hält das reine Denken und die Einzelnheit zusammen, ist aber noch nicht zu demjenigen Denken erhoben, für welches die Einzelnheit des Bewuſstseyns mit dem reinen Denken selbst ausgesöhnt ist. Es steht vielmehr in dieser Mitte, worin das abstracte Denken die Einzelnheit des Bewuſstseyns 1807 148 als Einzelnheit berührt. Es selbst ist diese Berührung; es ist die Einheit des reinen Denkens und der Einzelnheit; es ist auch für es diese denkende Einzelnheit, oder das reine Denken, und das Unwandelbare wesentlich selbst als Einzelnheit. Aber es ist nicht für es, daſs dieser sein Gegenstand, das Unwandelbare, welches ihm wesentlich die Gestalt der Einzelnheit hat, es selbst ist, es selbst, das Einzelnheit des Bewuſstseyns ist.
217 Es verhält sich daher in dieser ersten Weise, worin wir es als reines Bewuſstseyn betrachten, zu seinem Gegenstande nicht denkend, sondern indem es selbst zwar an sich reine denkende Einzelnheit und sein Gegenstand eben dieses, aber nicht die Beziehung aufeinander selbst reines Denken ist, geht es, so zu sagen, nur an das Denken hin, und ist Andacht. Sein Denken als solche bleibt das gestaltlose Sausen des Glockengeläutes oder eine warme Nebelerfüllung, ein musicalisches Denken, das nicht zum Begriffe, der die einzige immanente gegenständliche Weise wäre, kommt. Es wird diesem unendlichen reinen innern Fühlen wohl sein Gegenstand; aber so eintretend, daſs er nicht als begriffner, und darum als ein Fremdes eintritt. Es ist hiedurch die innerliche Bewegung des reinen Gemüths vorhanden, welches sich selbst, aber als die Entzweyung schmerzhafft fühlt; die Bewegung einer unendlichen Sehnsucht, welche die Gewiſsheit hat, daſs ihr Wesen ein solches reines Gemüth ist, reines Denken, 1807 149 welches sich als Einzelnheit denkt; daſs sie von diesem Gegenstande, ebendarum, weil er sich als Einzelnheit denkt, erkannt, und anerkannt wird. Zugleich aber ist diſs Wesen das unerreichbare Jenseits, welches im Ergreiffen entflieht, oder vielmehr schon entflohen ist. Es ist schon entflohen; denn es ist einestheils das sich als Einzelnheit denkende Unwandelbare, und das Bewuſstseyn erreicht sich selbst daher unmittelbar in ihm, sich selbst, aber als das dem Unwandelbaren entgegengesetzte; statt das Wesen zu ergreiffen fühlt es nur, und ist in sich zurückgefallen; indem es im Erreichen sich als diſs entgegengesetzte nicht abhalten kann, hat es statt das Wesen ergriffen zu haben, nur die Unwesentlichkeit ergriffen. Wie es so auf einer Seite, indem es sich im Wesen zu erreichen strebt, nur die eigne getrennte Wirklichkeit ergreifft, so kann es auf der andern Seite das Andere nicht als einzelnes, oder als wirkliches ergreiffen. Wo es gesucht werde, kann es nicht gefunden werden, denn es soll eben ein Jenseits, ein solches seyn, welches nicht gefunden werden kann. Es als einzelnes gesucht, ist nicht eine allgemeine, gedachte Einzelnheit, nicht Begriff, sonder einzelnes als Gegenstand, oder ein wirkliches; Gegenstand der unmittelbaren sinnlichen Gewiſsheit; und ebendarum nur ein solches, welches verschwunden ist. Dem Bewuſstseyn kann daher nur das Grab seines Lebens zur Gegenwart kommen. Aber weil diſs selbst eine Wirklichkeit und es gegen 1807 150 die Natur dieser ist, einen dauernden Besitz zu gewähren; so ist auch diese Gegenwart des Grabes nur der Kampf eines Bemühens, der verloren werden muſs. Allein indem es diese Erfahrung gemacht, daſs das Grab seines wirklichen unwandelbaren Wesens keine Wirklichkeit hat, daſs die verschwundene Einzelnheit als verschwundne nicht die wahre Einzelnheit ist, wird es die unwandelbare Einzelnheit als wirkliche aufzusuchen, oder als verschwundne festzuhalten aufgeben, und erst hiedurch ist es fähig die Einzelnheit als wahrhafſte oder als allgemeine zu finden.
218 Zunächst aber ist die Rückkehr des Gemüths in sich selbst so zu nehmen, daſs es sich als einzelnes Wirklichkeit hat. Es ist das reine Gemüth, welches für uns oder an sich, sich gefunden und in sich ersättigt ist, denn ob für es in seinem Gefühle sich wohl das Wesen von ihm trennt, so ist an sich diſs Gefühl Selbstgefühl, es hat den Gegenstand seines reinen Fühlens gefühlt, und dieser ist es selbst; es tritt also hieraus als Selbstgefühl oder für sich seyendes Wirkliches auf. In dieser Rückkehr in sich ist für uns sein zweytes Verhältniſs geworden, das der Begierde und Arbeit, welche dem Bewuſstseyn die innerliche Gewiſsheit seiner selbst, die es für uns erlangt hat, durch Aufheben und Genieſsen des fremden Wesens, nemlich desselben in der Form der selbstständigen Dinge bewährt. Das unglückliche Bewuſstseyn aber findet sich nur als 1807 151 *begehrend und arbeitends es ist für es nicht vorhanden, daſs sich so zu finden, die innre Gewiſsheit seiner selbst zum Grunde liegt, und sein Gefühl des Wesens diſs Selbstgefühl ist. Indem es sie für sich selbst nicht hat, bleibt sein Innres vielmehr noch die gebrochne Gewiſsheit seiner selbst; die Bewährung, welche es durch Arbeit und Genuſs erhalten würde, ist darum eine ebensolche gebrochne; oder es muſs sich vielmehr selbst diese Bewährung vernichten, so daſs es in ihr wohl die Bewährung, aber nur die Bewährung desjenigen, was es für sich ist, nemlich seiner Entzweyung findet.
219 Die Wirklichkeit, gegen welche sich die Begierde und die Arbeit wendet, ist diesem Bewuſstseyn nicht mehr ein an sich nichtiges, von ihm nur aufzuhebendes und zu verzehrendes, sondern ein solches, wie es selbst ist, eine entzwey gebrochene Wirklichkeit, welche nur einerseits an sich nichtig, andererseits aber auch eine geheiligte Welt ist; sie ist Gestalt des Unwandelbaren, denn dieses hat die Einzelnheit an sich erhalten, und weil es als das Unwandelbare Allgemeines ist, hat seine Einzelnheit überhaupt die Bedeutung aller Wirklichkeit.
220 Wenn das Bewuſstseyn für sich selbstständiges Bewuſstseyn und ihm die Wirklichkeit an und für sich nichtig wäre, würde es in der Arbeit und in dem Genusse zum Gefühle seiner Selbstständigkeit gelangen, dadurch daſs es selbst es wäre, welches die 1807 152 Wirklichkeit aufhöbe. Allein indem diese ihm Gestalt des Unwandelbaren ist, vermag es nicht sie durch sich aufzuheben. Sondern indem es zwar zur Vernichtung der Wirklichkeit und zum Genusse gelangt, so geschieht für es diſs wesentlich dadurch, daſs das Unwandelbare selbst seine Gestalt preisgibt, und ihm zum Genusse überlaſst. — Das Bewuſstseyn tritt hierin seinerseits gleichfalls als Wirkliches auf, aber ebenso als innerlich gebrochen, und diese Entzweyung stellt sich in seinem Arbeiten und Genieſsen dar, in ein Verhaltniſs zur Wirklichkeit oder das Fürsichseyn und in ein Ansichseyn sich zu brechen. Jenes Verhältniſs zur Wirklichkeit ist das Verändern oder das Thun, das Fürsichseyn, das dem einzelnen Bewuſstseyn als solchem angehört. Aber es ist darin auch an sich; diese Seite gehört dem Unwandelbaren Jenseits an; sie sind die Fähigkeiten und Kräffte, eine fremde Gabe, welche das Umwandelbare ebenso dem Bewuſstseyn überläſst, um sie zu gebrauchen.
221 In seinem Thun ist demnach das Bewuſstseyn zunächst in dem Verhältnisse zweyer Extreme; es steht als das thätige Disseits auf einer Seite, und ihm gegenüber die passive Wirklichkeit, beyde in Beziehung auf einander aber auch beyde in das Unwandelbare zurückgegangen, und an sich festhaltend. Von beyden Seiten löst sich daher nur eine Oberfläche gegeneinander ab, welche in das Spiel der Bewegung gegen die andre tritt. — Das Extrem der Wirklichkeit wird durch das thätige Extrem aufgehoben; sie 1807 153 von ihrer Seite kann aber nur darum aufgehoben werden, weil ihr unwandelbares Wesen sie selbst aufhebt, sich von sich abstöſst, und das abgestoſsene der Thätigkeit preisgibt. Die thätige Krafft erscheint als die Macht, worin die Wirklichkeit sich auflöst; darum aber ist für dieses Bewuſstseyn, welchem das Ansich oder das Wesen ein ihm Andres ist, diese Macht, als welche es in der Thätigkeit auftritt, das Jenseits seiner selbst. Statt also aus seinem Thun in sich zurückzukehren, und sich für sich selbst bewährt zu haben, reflectirt es vielmehr diese Bewegung des Thuns in das andre Extrem zurück, welches hiedurch als rein allgemeines, als die absolute Macht dargestellt ist, von der die Bewegung nach allen Seiten ausgegangen, und die das Wesen sowohl der sich zersetzenden Extreme, wie sie zuerst auftraten, als des Wechsels selbst sey.
222 Daſs das unwandelbare Bewuſstseyn auf seine Gestalt Verzicht thut und sie preisgibt, dagegen das einzelne Bewuſstseyn dankt, d. h. die Befriedigung des Bewuſstseyns seiner Selbstständigkeit sich versagt, und das Wesen des Thuns von sich ab dem Jenseits zuweist, durch diese beyde Momente des gegenseitigen sich aufgebens beyder Theile entsteht hiemit allerdings dem Bewuſstseyn seine Einheit mit dem Unwandelbaren. Allein zugleich ist diese Einheit mit der Trennung afficirt, in sich wieder gebrochen, und es tritt aus ihr der Gegensatz des allgemeinen und einzelnen wieder hervor. Denn das 1807 154 Bewuſstseyn entsagt zwar zum Scheine, der Befriedigung seines Selbstgefühls; erlangt aber die wirkliche Befriedigung desselben; denn es ist Begierde, Arbeit und Genuſs gewesen; es hat als Bewuſstseyn gewollt, gethan und genossen. Sein Danken ebenso, worin es das andre Extrem als das Wesen anerkennt, und sich aufhebt, ist selbst sein eignes Thun, welches das Thun des andern Extrems aufwiegt, und der sich preisgebenden Wohlthat ein gleiches Thun entgegenstellt; wenn jenes ihm seine Oberfläche überläſst, so dankt es aber auch, und thut darin, indem es sein Thun, d. h. sein Wesen, selbst aufgibt, eigentlich mehr als das andere, das nur eine Oberfläche von sich abstöſst. Die ganze Bewegung reflectirt sich also nicht nur im wirklichen Begehren, Arbeiten und Genieſsen, sondern sogar selbst im Danken, worin das Gegentheil zu geschehen scheint, in das Extrem der Einzelnheit. Das Bewuſstseyn fühlt sich darin als dieses einzelne, und läſst sich durch den Schein seines Verzichtleistens nicht täuschen, denn die Wahrheit desselben ist, daſs es sich nicht aufgegeben hat; was zu Stande gekommen, ist nur die gedoppelte Reflexion in die beyden Extreme, und das Resultat die wiederholte Spaltung in das entgegengesetzte Bewuſstseyn des Unwandelbaren und in das Bewuſstseyn des gegenüberstehenden Wollens, Vollbringens, Genieſsens, und des auf sich Verzichtleistens selbst, oder der fürsichseyenden Einzelnheit überhaupt.
1807 155
223 Es ist damit das dritte Verhältniſs der Bewegung dieses Bewuſstseyns eingetreten, welches aus dem zweyten als ein solches hervortritt, das in Wahrheit durch sein Wollen und Vollbringen sich als selbstständiges erprobt hat. Im ersten Verhältnisse war es nur Begriff des wirklichen Bewuſstseyns, oder das innre Gemüth, welches im Thun und Genusse noch nicht wirklich ist; das zweyte ist diese Verwirklichung, als äuſseres Thun und Genieſsen; hieraus aber zurückgekehrt ist es ein solches, welches sich als wirkliches und wirkendes Bewuſstseyn erfahren, oder dem es wahr ist, an und für sich zu seyn. Darin ist aber nun der Feind in seiner eigensten Gestalt aufgefunden. Im Kampfe des Gemüths ist das einzelne Bewuſstseyn nur als musicalisches, abstractes Moment; in der Arbeit und dem Genusse, als der Realisirung dieses wesenlosen Seyns, kann es unmittelbar sich vergessen, und die bewuſste Eigenheit in dieser Wirklichkeit wird durch das dankende Anerkennen niedergeschlagen. Dieses Niederschlagen ist aber in Wahrheit eine Rückkehr des Bewuſstseyns in sich selbst, und zwar in sich als die ihm wahrhaffte Wirklichkeit.
224 Diſs dritte Verhältniſs, worin diese wahrhaffte Wirklichkeit das Eine Extrem ist, ist die Beziehung derselben auf das allgemeine Wesen, als der Nichtigkeit; und die Bewegung dieser Beziehung ist noch zu betrachten.
1807 156
225 Was zuerst die entgegengesetzte Beziehung des Bewuſstseyns betrifft, worin ihm seine Realität unmittelbar das Nichtige ist, so wird also sein wirkliches Thun zu einem Thun von Nichts, sein Genuſs Gefühl seines Unglücks. Hiemit verlieren Thun und Genuſs allen allgemeinen Inhalt und Bedeutung, denn dadurch hätten sie ein an und fürsichseyn, und beyde ziehen sich in die Einzelnheit zurück, auf welche das Bewuſstseyn, sie aufzuheben, gerichtet ist. Seiner als dieses wirklichen Einzelnen, ist das Bewuſstseyn sich in den thierischen Functionen bewuſst. Diese, statt unbefangen, als etwas, das an und für sich nichtig ist, und keine Wichtigkeit und Wesenheit für den Geist erlangen kann, gethan zu werden, da sie es sind, in welchen sich der Feind in seiner eigenthümlichen Gestalt zeigt, sind sie vielmehr Gegenstand des ernstlichen Bemühens, und werden gerade zum Wichtigsten. Indem aber dieser Feind in seiner Niederlage sich erzeugt, das Bewuſstseyn, da es sich ihn fixirt, vielmehr statt frey davon zu werden, immer dabey verweilt, und sich immer verunreinigt erblickt, zugleich dieser Inhalt seines Bestrebens, statt eines wesentlichen das niedrigste, statt eines allgemeinen das einzelnste ist, so sehen wir nur eine auf sich und ihr kleines Thun beschränkte, und sich bebrütende, eben so unglückliche als ärmliche Persönlichkeit.
226 Aber an beydes, das Gefühl seines Unglücks, und die Aermlichkeit seines Thuns knüpft sich 1807 157 ebenso das Bewuſstseyn seiner Einheit mit dem Unwandelbaren. Denn die versuchte unmittelbare Vernichtung seines wirklichen Seyns ist vermittelt durch den Gedanken des Unwandelbaren, und geschieht in dieser Beziehung. Die mittelbare Beziehung macht das Wesen der negativen Bewegung aus, in welcher es sich gegen seine Einzelnheit richtet, welche aber ebenso als Beziehung an sich positiv ist, und für es selbst diese seine Einheit hervorbringen wird.
227 Diese mittelbare Beziehung ist hiemit ein Schluſs, in welchem die sich zuerst als gegen das Ansich entgegengesetzt fixirende Einzelnheit, mit diesem andern Extreme nur durch ein drittes zusammengeschlossen ist. Durch diese Mitte ist das Extrem des unwandelbaren Bewuſstseyns für das unwesentliche Bewuſstseyn, in welchem zugleich auch diſs ist, daſs es ebenso für jenes nur durch diese Mitte sey, und diese Mitte hiemit eine solche, die beyde Extreme einander vorstellt, und der gegenseitige Diener eines jeden bey dem andern ist. Diese Mitte ist selbst ein bewuſstes Wesen, denn sie ist ein das Bewuſstseyn als solches vermittelndes Thun; der Inhalt dieses Thuns ist die Vertilgung, welche das Bewuſstseyn mit seiner Einzelnheit vornimmt.
228 In ihr also befreyt dieses sich von dem Thun und Genusse als dem seinen; es stöſst von sich als fürsichseyendem Extreme das Wesen seines Willens ab, und wirft auf die Mitte oder den Diener die 1807 158 Eigenheit und Freyheit des Entschlusses, und damit die Schuld seines Thuns. Dieser Vermittler, als mit dem unwandelbaren Wesen in unmittelbarer Beziehung, dient mit seinem Rathe über das Rechte. Die Handlung, indem sie Befolgung eines fremden Beschlusses ist, hört nach der Seite des Thuns oder des Willens auf, die eigne zu seyn. Es bleibt aber noch ihre gegenständliche Seite dem unwesentlichen Bewuſstseyn, nemlich die Frucht seiner Arbeit und der Genuſs. Diesen stöſst es also ebenso von sich ab, und leistet, wie auf seinen Willen so auf seine in der Arbeit und Genusse erhaltene Wirklichkeit Verzicht; auf sie, theils als auf die erreichte Wahrheit seiner selbstbewuſsten Selbstständigkeit, — indem es etwas ganz Fremdes ihm sinnloses vorstellend und sprechend sich bewegt; — theils auf sie als äuſserliches Eigenthum, — indem es von dem Besitze, den es durch die Arbeit erworben, etwas abläſst; theils auf den gehabten Genuſs, — indem es ihn im Fasten und Kasteyen auch wieder ganz sich versagt.
229 Durch diese Momente des Aufgebens des eignen Entschlusses, dann des Eigenthumes und Genusses, und endlich das positive Moment des Treibens eines unverstandenen Geschäfftes nimmt es sich in Wahrheit und vollständig das Bewuſstseyn der innern und äuſsern Freyheit, der Wirklichkeit als seines Fürsichseyns; es hat die Gewiſsheit in Wahrheit seines Ich sich entäuſsert, und sein unmittelbares Selbstbewuſstseyn zu einem 1807 159 *Dinge, zu einem gegenständlichen Seyn gemacht zu haben. — Die Verzichtleistung auf sich konnte es allein durch diese wirkliche Aufopferung bewähren; denn nur in ihr verschwindet der Betrug, welcher in dem innern Anerkennen des Dankens durch Herz, Gesinnung und Mund liegt, einem Anerkennen, welches zwar alle Macht des Fürsichseyns von sich abwälzt, und sie einem Geben von oben zuschreibt, aber in diesem Abwälzen selbst sich die äuſsere Eigenheit in dem Besitze, den es nicht aufgibt, die innre aber in dem Bewuſstseyn des Entschlusses, den es selbst gefaſst, und in dem Bewuſstseyn seines durch es bestimmten Inhalts, den es nicht gegen einen fremden es sinnlos erfüllenden umgetauscht hat, behält.
230 Aber in der wirklich vollbrachten Aufopferung hat an sich, wie das Bewuſstseyn das Thun als das seinige aufgehoben, auch sein Unglück von ihm abgelassen. Daſs diſs Ablassen an sich geschehen ist, ist jedoch ein Thun des andern Extrems des Schlusses, welches das ansichseyende Wesen ist. Jene Aufopferung des unwesentlichen Extrems war aber zugleich nicht ein einseitiges Thun, sondern enthielt das Thun des andern in sich. Denn das Aufgeben des eignen Willens ist nur einerseits negativ, seinem Begriffe nach oder an sich, zugleich aber positiv, nemlich das Setzen des Willens als eines Andern, und bestimmt des Willens als eines nicht einzelnen, sondern allgemeinen. Für diſs 1807 160 Bewuſstseyn ist diese positive Bedeutung des negativ gesetzten einzelnen Willens der Willen des andern Extrems, der ihm, weil er eben ein anderes für es ist, nicht durch sich, sondern durch das Dritte, den Vermittler als Rath, wird. Es wird daher für es sein Willen wohl zum allgemeinen, und an sich seyenden Willen, aber es selbst ist sich nicht diſs an sich; das Aufgeben des seinigen als einzelnen ist ihm nicht dem Begriffe nach das positive des allgemeinen Willens. Ebenso sein Aufgeben des Besitzes und Genusses hat nur dieselbe negative Bedeutung, und das Allgemeine, das für es dadurch wird, ist ihm nicht sein eignes Thun. Diese Einheit des gegenständlichen und des fürsichseyns, welche im Begriffe des Thuns ist, und welche darum dem Bewuſstseyn als das Wesen und Gegenstand wird, — wie sie ihm nicht der Begriff seines Thuns ist, so ist ihm auch diſs nicht, daſs sie als Gegenstand für es wird, unmittelbar und durch es selbst, sondern es läſst sich von dem vermittelnden Diener diese selbst noch gebrochne Gewiſsheit aussprechen, daſs nur an sich sein Unglück das verkehrte, nemlich sich in seinem Thun selbstbefriedigendes Thun, oder seeliger Genuſs; sein ärmliches Thun ebenso an sich das verkehrte, nemlich absolutes Thun; dem Begriffe nach, das Thun nur als Thun des Einzelnen überhaupt Thun ist. Aber für es selbst bleibt das Thun, und sein wirkliches Thun ein ärmliches, und sein Genuſs der Schmerz, und das Aufgehobenseyn 1807 161 derselben, in der positiven Bedeutung ein Jenseits. Aber in diesem Gegenstande, worin ihm sein Thun und Seyn als dieses einzelnen Bewuſstseyns, Seyn und Thun an sich ist, ist ihm die Vorstellung der Vernunft geworden, der Gewiſsheit des Bewuſstseyns in seiner Einzelnheit absolut an sich, oder alle Realität zu seyn.
Musean translation
Mouseia's complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete German of the 1807 first edition, all 808 standard paragraphs in eight chapters plus Preface and Introduction, for fidelity, Hegel's argument, clarity and structure. German witness: Deutsches Textarchiv, CC BY-SA 4.0; page markers keep the 1807 pagination.
1807 101
IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty.
166 In the modes of certainty considered so far, the true is for consciousness something other than consciousness itself. But the concept of this true vanishes in the experience of it: as the object immediately was in itself—the existent of sense-certainty, the concrete thing of perception, the force of understanding—it proves rather not to be in truth. Instead, this in-itself emerges as a manner in which the object is only for another; its concept sublates itself in the actual object, or the first immediate representation sublates itself in experience, and certainty was lost in truth. But now there has arisen what did not come about in those earlier relations: a certainty equal to its truth, for certainty is itself its object, and consciousness is itself the true. There is admittedly an otherness in this too: consciousness differentiates, but differentiates something that for it 1807 102 is at the same time not differentiated. If we call the movement of knowing concept, and knowing as tranquil unity, or as I, the object, we see that not only for us but for knowing itself the object corresponds to the concept. Or, in the other manner, if we call what the object is in itself the concept, but what it is as object, or for another, the object, it is clear that being-in-itself and being-for-another are the same; for the in-itself is consciousness, but consciousness is equally that for which another—the in-itself—is. And it is for consciousness that the in-itself of the object and its being for another are the same. I is the content of the relation and the relating itself; it is itself against another and at the same time reaches over this other, which for it is likewise only itself.
167 With self-consciousness, then, we have now entered the native realm of truth. We must see how the shape of self-consciousness first appears. If we consider this new shape of knowing, knowing of itself, in relation to what preceded, knowing of another, the latter has indeed vanished; but its moments have at the same time equally been preserved, and the loss consists in their being present here as they are in themselves. The being of meaning, the singularity and the 1807 103 universality opposed to it in perception, and the empty inner of understanding are no longer essences but moments of self-consciousness—that is, abstractions or differences that for consciousness itself are at the same time null, or no differences, and purely vanishing essences. Thus only the principal moment itself seems to have been lost, namely simple independent subsistence for consciousness. But in fact self-consciousness is reflection out of the being of the sensuous and perceived world, and essentially return from otherness. As self-consciousness it is movement; but since it distinguishes from itself only itself as itself, difference is for it immediately sublated as otherness. Difference is not, and self-consciousness is only the motionless tautology "I am I"; insofar as difference does not also have for it the shape of being, it is not self-consciousness. Thus otherness is for it as a being, or as a differentiated moment; but its own unity with this difference is also for it, as a second differentiated moment. With that first moment, self-consciousness is preserved as consciousness, and for it the whole expanse of the sensuous world is preserved; but at the same time only as related to the second moment, the unity of self-consciousness with itself. The world is thereby for self-consciousness a subsistence that is, however, only appearance, or 1807 104 difference that in itself has no being. But this opposition of its appearance and its truth has only truth, namely the unity of self-consciousness with itself, for its essence; this unity must become essential to self-consciousness—that is, self-consciousness is desire in general. As self-consciousness, consciousness now has a twofold object: one, the immediate object, the object of sense-certainty and perception, which, however, for it is marked with the character of the negative; and the second, namely itself, which is the true essence and initially is present only in opposition to the first. In this, self-consciousness presents itself as the movement in which this opposition is sublated and the equality of itself with itself comes to be for it.
168 Yet the object that is the negative for self-consciousness has, for its part, for us, or in itself, returned into itself just as consciousness has on the other side. Through this reflection into itself it has become life. What self-consciousness distinguishes from itself as being also has within it, insofar as it is posited as being, not merely the mode of sense-certainty and perception, but is being reflected into itself; and the object of immediate desire is something living. For the in-itself, or the universal result of understanding's relation to the 1807 105 inner of things, is differentiation of what is not to be differentiated, or the unity of what is differentiated. But this unity is just as much, as we have seen, its repulsion of itself from itself, and this concept divides into the opposition of self-consciousness and life: the former the unity for which the infinite unity of differences is; the latter, however, is only this unity itself, so that it is not at the same time for itself. Thus the object is in itself just as independent as consciousness. Self-consciousness, which is utterly for itself and immediately marks its object with the character of the negative, or is initially desire, will therefore rather experience the object's independence.
169 The determination of life as it emerges from the concept, or the universal result with which we enter this sphere, suffices to characterize it without further developing its nature from this determination; its circle closes in the following moments. Essence is infinity as the being-sublated of all differences, pure movement turning on its axis, the repose of itself as absolutely restless infinity; independence itself, in which the differences of movement are dissolved; the simple essence of time, which in this self-equality has the solid shape of space. Yet the 1807 106 differences are just as much present in this simple universal medium as differences; for this universal fluidity has its negative nature only insofar as it is a sublation of them. But it cannot sublate the differentiated elements unless they have a subsistence. Precisely this fluidity, as self-equal independence, is itself their subsistence, or substance, in which they thus are as differentiated members and parts being-for-themselves. Being no longer has the meaning of the abstraction of being, nor does their pure essentiality have the meaning of the abstraction of universality; rather, their being is precisely that simple fluid substance of pure movement within itself. But the difference of these members from one another, as difference, consists in no other determinateness at all than the determinateness of the moments of infinity, or of pure movement itself.
170 The independent members are for themselves; but this being-for-themselves is rather just as immediately their reflection into unity as this unity is division into independent shapes. Unity is divided because it is absolutely negative or infinite unity; and because it is subsistence, difference too has independence only in it. This independence of shape appears as something determinate, for another, for it is something divided; and the sublation of division takes place to that extent through another. 1807 107 But it is equally within the shape itself; for precisely that fluidity is the substance of the independent shapes, and this substance is infinite. Shape is therefore, in its very subsistence, division, or the sublation of its being-for-itself.
171 If we distinguish more closely the moments contained here, we see that as the first moment we have the subsistence of independent shapes, or the suppression of what differentiation is in itself: namely, not to be in itself and to have no subsistence. The second moment, however, is the subjection of that subsistence to the infinity of difference. In the first moment there is the subsisting shape; as substance being-for-itself, or infinite in its determinateness, it stands against universal substance, denies this fluidity and continuity with universal substance, and asserts itself as not dissolved in this universal, but rather as maintaining itself through separation from this inorganic nature of its own and through consuming it. Life in the universal fluid medium, a tranquil laying-out of shapes, thereby becomes the movement of these shapes, or life as process. Simple universal fluidity is the in-itself, and the difference of shapes the other. But through this difference, fluidity itself becomes the other; for it is now for difference, which is in and for itself and hence 1807 108 is the infinite movement by which that tranquil medium is consumed: life as living. Yet this inversion is therefore in turn an inversion within itself: what is consumed is essence; individuality, maintaining itself at the expense of the universal and giving itself the feeling of its unity with itself, precisely thereby sublates its opposition to the other, through which it is for itself. The unity with itself that it gives itself is precisely the fluidity of differences, or universal dissolution. Conversely, however, the sublation of individual subsistence is equally its production. For since the essence of the individual shape is universal life, and what is for itself is in itself simple substance, in positing the other within itself it sublates this simplicity of its own, or its essence; that is, it divides simplicity, and this division of undifferentiated fluidity is precisely the positing of individuality. Thus the simple substance of life is its division into shapes, and at the same time the dissolution of these subsisting differences; and the dissolution of division is just as much division, or articulation into members. The two sides of the entire movement that were distinguished thereby coincide: namely, configuration tranquilly laid out in the universal medium of independence, and the process of life. The latter is just as much configuration as it is sublation of shape 1807 109; and the first, configuration, is just as much sublation as it is articulation. The fluid element is itself only the abstraction of essence, or is actual only as shape; and its articulating itself is again a dividing of what is articulated, or a dissolving of it. This entire cycle constitutes life: neither what is first expressed, the immediate continuity and solidity of its essence, nor subsisting shape and the discrete that is for itself, nor their pure process, nor again the simple gathering together of these moments, but the whole that develops itself, dissolves its development, and in this movement maintains itself as simple.
172 Since the movement departs from the first immediate unity, passes through the moments of configuration and process to the unity of these two moments, and thereby returns again to the first simple substance, this reflected unity is other than the first. In contrast to that immediate unity, or unity expressed as a being, this second unity is the universal, which has all these moments within it as sublated. It is the simple genus, which does not exist for itself as this simple element in the movement of life itself; rather, in this result, life points to something other than what it is, namely to consciousness, for which it is as this unity, or as genus.
1807 110
173 But this other life, for which genus is as such and which is genus for itself—self-consciousness—is initially for itself only as this simple essence, and has itself as pure I for its object. In its experience, which must now be considered, this abstract object will become enriched for it and acquire the unfolding we have seen in life.
174 The simple I is this genus, or the simple universal for which differences are none, only insofar as it is the negative essence of the shaped, independent moments; and self-consciousness is thereby certain of itself only through sublating this other, which presents itself to it as independent life. It is desire. Certain of the nullity of this other, it posits that nullity for itself as its truth, annihilates the independent object, and thereby gives itself self-certainty as true certainty, as a certainty that has come to be for self-consciousness itself in an objective manner.
175 Yet in this satisfaction it experiences the independence of its object. Desire and the self-certainty attained in its satisfaction are conditioned by the object, for this certainty is through sublation of this other; for this sublation to be, this other must be. Thus through its negative relation self-consciousness cannot sublate the object; rather, it therefore produces the object again, as well as desire. In 1807 111 fact, something other than self-consciousness is the essence of desire; and through this experience this truth has come to be for self-consciousness itself. Yet at the same time self-consciousness is equally absolutely for itself, and is so only through sublating the object; and its satisfaction must come to it, for it is the truth. On account of the object's independence, it can therefore attain satisfaction only insofar as the object itself carries out negation within itself; and the object must carry out this negation of itself within itself, for it is in itself the negative, and must be for the other what it is. Since it is negation within itself and is at the same time independent in this, it is consciousness. In life, which is the object of desire, negation is either in another, namely in desire, or as determinateness against another indifferent shape, or as life's inorganic universal nature. But this universal independent nature, in which negation is as absolute, is genus as such, or as self-consciousness. Self-consciousness attains its satisfaction only in another self-consciousness.
176 Only in these three moments is the concept of self-consciousness complete: a) pure undifferentiated I is its first immediate object. b) But this immediacy is itself absolute mediation; it is only as sublation of the independent object, or it is desire. The 1807 112 satisfaction of desire is indeed self-consciousness's reflection into itself, or certainty become truth. c) But the truth of this certainty is rather twofold reflection, the duplication of self-consciousness. There is an object for consciousness that in itself posits its otherness, or difference, as null, and is independent in this. The differentiated, merely living shape does indeed itself also sublate its independence in the process of life, but with its difference it ceases to be what it is; the object of self-consciousness, however, is equally independent in this negativity of itself. It is thereby genus for itself, universal fluidity in the distinctive character of its separation; it is living self-consciousness.
177 There is a self-consciousness for a self-consciousness. Only through this is it in fact; for only in this does the unity of itself in its otherness come to be for it. I, which is the object of its concept, is in fact not an object; the object of desire, however, is only independent, for it is the universal, indestructible substance, the fluid self-equal essence. When a self-consciousness is the object, it is I just as much as object. With this, the concept of spirit is already present for us. What further comes to be for consciousness is the experience of what 1807 113 spirit is: this absolute substance which, in the complete freedom and independence of its opposition—namely, of different self-consciousnesses that are for themselves—is their unity; I that is we, and we that is I. Only in self-consciousness, as the concept of spirit, does consciousness have its turning point, at which it steps out of the colorful semblance of the sensuous here-and-now and out of the empty night of the supersensible beyond into the spiritual daylight of the present.
1807 114
A. Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness; Lordship and Bondage.
178 Self-consciousness is in and for itself insofar as, and through the fact that, it is in and for itself for another; that is, it is only as something recognized. The concept of this unity of self-consciousness in its duplication, of infinity realizing itself in self-consciousness, is a many-sided and many-meaninged interweaving. Its moments must therefore partly be kept precisely apart, partly at the same time, in this differentiation, also be taken and cognized as not differentiated, or always in their opposed meaning. The double meaning of what is differentiated lies in the essence of self-consciousness: to be infinite, or immediately the opposite of the determinateness in which it is posited. The unfolding of the concept of this spiritual unity in its duplication presents to us the movement of recognition.
179 For self-consciousness there is another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. 1807 115 This has a twofold meaning: first, it has lost itself, for it finds itself as an other essence; second, it has thereby sublated the other, for it also does not see the other as essence, but itself in the other.
180 It must sublate this otherness of its own; this is the sublation of the first double meaning, and therefore itself a second double meaning. First, it must set out to sublate the other independent essence in order thereby to become certain of itself as essence; second, it thereby sets out to sublate itself, for this other is itself.
181 This double-meaninged sublation of its double-meaninged otherness is equally a double-meaninged return into itself; for first, through sublation it receives itself back, since through sublating its otherness it becomes equal to itself again. Second, however, it equally gives the other self-consciousness back to that self-consciousness; for it was itself in the other, and it sublates this being of its own in the other, thus releases the other again into freedom.
182 Yet this movement of self-consciousness in relation to another self-consciousness has been presented in this way as the doing of one; but this doing of one itself has the twofold meaning of being equally its own doing and the doing of the other. For the other is equally independent, enclosed within itself, and there is nothing in it that is not through itself. The first 1807 116 does not have the object before it as the object initially is only for desire, but as an independent object that is for itself; hence it can accomplish nothing for itself with regard to this object unless the object does in itself what the first self-consciousness does to it. The movement is therefore simply the twofold movement of both self-consciousnesses. Each sees the other do the same as it does; each itself does what it demands of the other, and therefore does what it does only insofar as the other does the same. One-sided doing would be useless, because what is to happen can come about only through both.
183 Doing is thus double-meaninged not only insofar as it is a doing equally against itself and against the other, but also insofar as it is inseparably equally the doing of one and of the other.
184 In this movement we see the process that presented itself as the play of forces repeat itself, but in consciousness. What in that process was for us is here for the extremes themselves. The middle is self-consciousness, which divides into the extremes, and each extreme is this interchange of its determinateness and absolute transition into the opposite. As consciousness it does indeed come outside itself, yet in its being-outside-itself it is at the same time retained within itself, for itself, and its outside-itself is for it. It is for it that it immediately is, and 1807 117 is not, another consciousness; and equally that this other is for itself only insofar as it sublates itself as being-for-itself, and is for itself only in the other's being-for-itself. Each is for the other the middle through which each mediates and unites itself with itself, and each is for itself and the other an immediate essence that is for itself, yet at the same time is for itself in this way only through this mediation. They recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.
185 This pure concept of recognition, of the duplication of self-consciousness in its unity, must now be considered as its process appears for self-consciousness. It will first present the side of the inequality of the two, or the emergence of the middle into the extremes, which, as extremes, are opposed to one another, one being only recognized, the other only recognizing.
186 Self-consciousness is initially simple being-for-itself, self-equal through excluding everything other from itself; its essence and absolute object is for it I. And in this immediacy, or in this being of its being-for-itself, it is singular. Whatever else is for it is an inessential object marked with the character of the negative. But the other is also a self-consciousness; an individual appears opposite an individual. Appearing thus immediately, they are for one another in the manner of ordinary objects: independent shapes, consciousnesses immersed in the being 1807 118 of life—for the existent object has here determined itself as life—which have not yet accomplished for one another the movement of absolute abstraction, of eradicating all immediate being and being only the purely negative being of self-equal consciousness; or they have not yet presented themselves to one another as pure being-for-itself, that is, as self-consciousness. Each is indeed certain of itself, but not of the other, and therefore its own self-certainty still has no truth; for its truth would be only that its own being-for-itself had presented itself to it as an independent object, or, what is the same, that the object had presented itself as this pure self-certainty. According to the concept of recognition, however, this is possible only when, as the other does for it, so it does for the other: each in itself, through its own doing and again through the other's doing, accomplishes this pure abstraction of being-for-itself.
187 But its presentation of itself as the pure abstraction of self-consciousness consists in showing itself as pure negation of its objective mode, or in showing that it is bound to no determinate existence, not to the universal singularity of existence in general, not to life. This presentation is twofold doing: the doing of the other and doing through oneself. Insofar as it is the other's doing, each thus seeks 1807 119 the other's death. Yet in this the second aspect, doing through oneself, is also present; for the former involves staking one's own life. The relation of both self-consciousnesses is therefore determined in such a way that they prove themselves and one another through the struggle for life and death. They must enter this struggle, for they must raise their self-certainty of being for themselves to truth, in the other and in themselves. And it is only through staking life that freedom is proved, that it is proved that for self-consciousness neither being, nor the immediate manner in which it appears, nor its immersion in the expanse of life is essence; rather, nothing is present within it that is not for it a vanishing moment, and it is only pure being-for-itself. The individual who has not risked life can indeed be recognized as a person, but has not attained the truth of this being-recognized as an independent self-consciousness. Equally, each must seek the other's death as it stakes its own life; for the other counts for it as no more than itself. Its essence presents itself to it as an other; it is outside itself; it must sublate its being-outside-itself. The other is a variously entangled and existent consciousness; self-consciousness must intuit its otherness as pure being-for-itself, or as absolute negation.
1807 120
188 Yet this proving through death sublates both the truth that was to emerge from it and, with it, self-certainty in general. For just as life is the natural position of consciousness, independence without absolute negativity, so death is its natural negation, negation without independence, which thus remains without the required significance of recognition. Through death, certainty has indeed come to be that both risked their lives and held life in contempt, in themselves and in the other; but not for those who underwent this struggle. They sublate their consciousness posited in this alien essentiality, which is natural existence, or they sublate themselves and are sublated as extremes wishing to be for themselves. But the essential moment thereby vanishes from the play of interchange: that of dividing into extremes of opposed determinatenesses. And the middle collapses into a dead unity divided into dead, merely existent, unopposed extremes; the two do not mutually give themselves to, and receive themselves back from, one another through consciousness, but merely leave one another free, indifferently, as things. Their deed is abstract negation, not the negation of consciousness, which sublates in such a way that it preserves and maintains what is sublated, and thereby survives its being-sublated.
1807 121
189 In this experience, self-consciousness comes to see that life is as essential to it as pure self-consciousness. In immediate self-consciousness, the simple I is the absolute object, which, however, for us, or in itself, is absolute mediation and has subsisting independence as an essential moment. The dissolution of that simple unity is the result of the first experience; through it a pure self-consciousness is posited, and a consciousness that is not purely for itself but for another—that is, as existent consciousness, or consciousness in the shape of thinghood. Both moments are essential; since they are initially unequal and opposed, and their reflection into unity has not yet emerged, they are as two opposed shapes of consciousness: one the independent consciousness for which being-for-itself is essence; the other the dependent consciousness for which life, or being-for-another, is essence. The former is the lord, the latter the bondsman.
190 The lord is consciousness being-for-itself, but no longer merely its concept; rather, consciousness being-for-itself that is mediated with itself through another consciousness, namely one to whose essence it belongs to be synthesized with independent being, or thinghood in general. The lord relates to these two moments: to a thing as such, 1807 122 the object of desire, and to the consciousness for which thinghood is essential. And since the lord is a) as the concept of self-consciousness, immediate relation of being-for-itself, but b) now at the same time as mediation, or as a being-for-itself that is for itself only through another, the lord relates a) immediately to both, and b) mediately to each through the other. The lord relates to the bondsman mediately through independent being; for precisely to this the bondsman is held. It is the chain from which the bondsman could not abstract in the struggle, and hence proved dependent, possessing independence in thinghood. But the lord is the power over this being, for in the struggle the lord proved that it counts only as something negative; and since the lord is the power over it, while this being is the power over the other, the lord has this other under domination in this syllogism. Likewise, the lord relates mediately through the bondsman to the thing; the bondsman, as self-consciousness in general, also relates negatively to the thing and sublates it. But the thing is at the same time independent for the bondsman, who therefore cannot, through negation, finish with it to the point of annihilation, but merely works upon it. For the lord, by contrast, through this mediation there comes to be the immediate relation as pure negation of the thing, or enjoyment. What desire failed to do, the lord succeeds in doing: finishing with the thing and satisfying himself in 1807 123 enjoyment. Desire failed in this because of the thing's independence; but the lord, having inserted the bondsman between the thing and himself, thereby joins himself only with the thing's dependence and enjoys it purely, leaving the side of independence to the bondsman, who works upon it.
191 In these two moments the lord's being-recognized through another consciousness comes to be for the lord; for this consciousness posits itself in them as inessential, once in working upon the thing, the other time in dependence upon a determinate existence. In both, it cannot become master over being and attain absolute negation. Thus the moment of recognition is present here in which the other consciousness sublates itself as being-for-itself, and thereby itself does what the first does against it. Equally, the other moment is present, that this doing of the second is the first's own doing; for what the bondsman does is properly the lord's doing. For the lord only being-for-itself is essence; the lord is the pure negative power for which the thing is nothing, and thus the pure essential doing in this relation; the bondsman, however, is a doing that is not pure but inessential. Yet for recognition proper, the moment is lacking in which the lord also does against himself what he does against the other, and the bondsman also does against the other what he does against himself. There has 1807 124 thereby arisen a one-sided and unequal recognition.
192 In this relation, inessential consciousness is for the lord the object constituting the truth of the lord's self-certainty. But it is clear that this object does not correspond to its concept; rather, in that in which the lord has fulfilled himself, something entirely different from an independent consciousness has come to be for him. What is for him is not such a consciousness, but rather a dependent one; the lord is thus not certain of being-for-itself as truth, but his truth is rather inessential consciousness and its inessential doing.
193 Accordingly, the truth of independent consciousness is bondsman consciousness. This admittedly appears initially outside itself and not as the truth of self-consciousness. Yet just as lordship showed that its essence is the inversion of what it wishes to be, so bondage too will, rather, in its fulfillment become the opposite of what it immediately is. As consciousness driven back into itself, it will enter into itself and turn into true independence.
194 We have seen only what bondage is in the relation of lordship. But it is self-consciousness, and what it accordingly is in and for itself must now be considered. Initially, for 1807 125 bondage, the lord is essence; thus independent consciousness being-for-itself is for it the truth, which, however, is not yet for it within itself. Yet it has this truth of pure negativity and being-for-itself in fact within itself, for it has experienced this essence within itself. For this consciousness has felt anxiety not for this or that, nor for this or that moment, but for its entire essence; for it has felt the fear of death, the absolute lord. In this fear it has been inwardly dissolved, has trembled throughout within itself, and everything fixed in it has quaked. But this pure universal movement, the absolute fluidification of all subsistence, is the simple essence of self-consciousness, absolute negativity, pure being-for-itself, which is thereby in this consciousness. This moment of pure being-for-itself is also for it, for in the lord it is its object. Furthermore, this consciousness is not merely this universal dissolution in general, but in serving it actually carries the dissolution out: in all singular moments it sublates its attachment to natural existence and works it away.
195 Yet the feeling of absolute power in general, and in the particulars of service, is only dissolution in itself; and although fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, in this fear consciousness is not, for itself, being-for-itself. Through work, however, it comes to itself. In the moment 1807 126 corresponding to desire in the lord's consciousness, the side of the inessential relation to the thing seemed indeed to have fallen to the serving consciousness, since in that relation the thing retains its independence. Desire has reserved for itself the pure negating of the object and thereby unmixed self-feeling. But this satisfaction is therefore itself only a vanishing, for it lacks the objective side, or subsistence. Work, by contrast, is inhibited desire, delayed vanishing; or it forms. The negative relation to the object becomes the object's form, and something enduring, precisely because the object has independence for the worker. This negative middle, or formative doing, is at the same time the singularity, or pure being-for-itself, of consciousness, which now in work steps outside itself into the element of endurance. Through this, working consciousness thus comes to intuit independent being as itself.
196 Forming, however, has not only this positive meaning, that in it serving consciousness becomes for itself, as pure being-for-itself, something existent; it also has a negative meaning against its first moment, fear. For in forming the thing, its own negativity, its being-for-itself, becomes its object only through its sublating the opposed, existent form. Yet this objective negative is precisely the alien essence before which it 1807 127 trembled. But now it destroys this alien negative, posits itself as such a negative in the element of endurance, and thereby becomes for itself something being-for-itself. In the lord, being-for-itself is for it an other, or only for it; in fear, being-for-itself is within it; in forming, being-for-itself becomes for it its own, and it becomes conscious that it itself is in and for itself. Through being set outside, form does not become something other than itself for consciousness; for precisely that form is its pure being-for-itself, which therein becomes truth for it. Through this rediscovery of itself through itself, it thus becomes a mind of its own, precisely in work, in which it seemed only to be another's mind. For this reflection, the two moments of fear and service in general, as well as forming, are necessary, and both at the same time in a universal manner. Without the discipline of service and obedience, fear remains at the formal level and does not spread over the conscious actuality of existence. Without forming, fear remains inward and mute, and consciousness does not become for itself. If consciousness forms without the first absolute fear, it is only a vain mind of its own; for its form, or negativity, is not negativity in itself, and its forming therefore cannot give it consciousness of itself as essence. If it has not endured absolute fear, but only some anxiety, negative essence has remained for it something 1807 128 external; its substance has not been infected by it through and through. Since not all the fulfillments of its natural consciousness have been shaken, it still belongs in itself to determinate being; its own mind is obstinacy, a freedom that still remains within bondage. Just as little as pure form can become its essence, so little is that form, considered as spreading over the singular, universal forming, absolute concept; rather, it is a skill that masters only some things, not universal power and the entire objective essence.
1807 129
B. Freedom of Self-Consciousness; Stoicism, Skepticism, and the Unhappy Consciousness.
197 For independent self-consciousness, on the one hand, only the pure abstraction of the I is its essence; and on the other, as this abstraction develops and gives itself differences, this differentiating does not become for it objective essence being-in-itself. This self-consciousness thus does not become an I that truly differentiates itself in its simplicity, or remains equal to itself in this absolute differentiation. Consciousness driven back into itself, by contrast, becomes its own object in forming, as the form of the things formed; and in the lord it intuits being-for-itself at the same time as consciousness. But for serving consciousness as such, these two moments—itself as independent object, and this object as a consciousness, and thus its own essence—fall apart. Yet since for us, or in itself, form and being-for-itself are the same, and in the 1807 130 concept of independent consciousness being-in-itself is consciousness, the side of being-in-itself, or thinghood, which form acquired in work, is no other substance than consciousness; and a new shape of self-consciousness has come to be for us: a consciousness which, as infinity, or the pure movement of consciousness, is its own essence; which thinks, or is free self-consciousness. For to be one's own object not as abstract I, but as I that at the same time has the meaning of being-in-itself, or to relate to objective essence in such a way that it has the meaning of the being-for-itself of the consciousness for which it is—this is thinking. For thinking, the object moves not in representations or shapes but in concepts, that is, in a differentiated being-in-itself which is immediately for consciousness not something differentiated from it. What is represented, shaped, existent, as such, has the form of being something other than consciousness; a concept, however, is at the same time something existent—and this difference, insofar as it is in the concept itself, is its determinate content. Yet because this content is at the same time comprehended, consciousness remains immediately conscious of its unity with this determinate and differentiated existent—not as in representation, where it must first expressly remind itself that this is its representation; rather, the concept is immediately my 1807 131 concept for me. In thinking I am free, because I am not in another, but remain utterly with myself, and the object that is essence for me is, in undivided unity, my being-for-myself; and my movement in concepts is a movement within myself. Yet in determining this shape of self-consciousness, it is essential to hold fast to this: it is thinking consciousness in general, or its object is the immediate unity of being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Consciousness that is like itself, repelling itself from itself, becomes for itself an element being-in-itself; but it is this element for itself only as universal essence in general, not as this objective essence in the development and movement of its manifold being.
198 As is well known, this freedom of self-consciousness, when it appeared as an appearance conscious of itself in the history of spirit, was called Stoicism. Its principle is that consciousness is thinking essence, and that something has essentiality for it, or is true and good for it, only insofar as consciousness behaves in it as thinking essence.
199 The manifold, internally differentiated expanse, singularization, and entanglement of life is the object upon which desire and work act. This manifold doing has now contracted into the simple differentiation 1807 132 present in the pure movement of thinking. Essentiality no longer belongs to difference presenting itself as a determinate thing, or as consciousness of a determinate natural existence, as a feeling, or as desire and a purpose for it, whether posited by one's own or by an alien consciousness; rather, essentiality belongs only to difference that is thought, or is immediately not differentiated from me. This consciousness thus takes a negative attitude toward the relation of lordship and bondage. Its doing consists in not having its truth, in lordship, in the bondsman, nor, as bondsman, in the lord's will and in its serving; rather, whether on the throne or in chains, in all the dependence of its singular existence, it is to be free and preserve the lifelessness that continually withdraws from the movement of existence, from acting as from suffering, into the simple essentiality of thought. Obstinacy is freedom that fastens upon a singularity and stands within bondage; Stoicism, however, is freedom that always immediately comes out of bondage and returns into the pure universality of thought. As a universal form of world spirit, it could appear only in a time of universal fear and bondage, but also of universal cultivation, which had raised forming to the level of thinking.
1807 133
200 Although the essence for this self-consciousness is neither something other than itself nor the pure abstraction of the I, but I that has otherness within it, though as a difference in thought, so that in its otherness it has immediately returned into itself, this essence of its own is at the same time only an abstract essence. The freedom of self-consciousness is indifferent to natural existence, and has therefore equally released this existence into freedom; and reflection is twofold. Freedom in thought has only pure thought for its truth, a truth without the fulfillment of life; and it is therefore also only the concept of freedom, not living freedom itself. For only thinking in general is as yet its essence, form as such, which has returned into itself from the independence of things. Yet if individuality were to present itself as living in action, or, as thinking, to grasp the living world as a system of thought, thought itself would have to contain a content: for the former expansion, a content of what is good, for the latter, of what is true, so that throughout, in what is for consciousness, there would be no ingredient other than the concept, which is essence. But as the concept here separates itself as abstraction from the multiplicity of things, it has no content within itself, but a given content. Consciousness does indeed eradicate the content as an alien being by thinking it; but the 1807 134 concept is determinate concept, and this determinateness of it is the alien element it has within it. Stoicism was therefore embarrassed when asked, as the expression went, for the criterion of truth in general—that is, properly, for a content of thought itself. To the question what is good and true, it again offered contentless thinking itself as its answer: the true and good were supposed to consist in rationality. But this self-equality of thinking is again only pure form, in which nothing determines itself. The general words concerning the true and good, wisdom and virtue, at which Stoicism must stop, are therefore indeed uplifting in general, but because they can in fact attain no expansion of content, they soon begin to produce boredom.
201 This thinking consciousness, as it has determined itself as abstract freedom, is thus only the incomplete negation of otherness. Merely withdrawn into itself from existence, it has not accomplished itself within itself as the absolute negation of existence. Content counts for it only as thought, admittedly, but at the same time as determinate thought, and determinateness as such counts as well.
202 Skepticism is the realization of that of which Stoicism is only the concept, and the actual experience of what freedom of thought 1807 135 is; this freedom is in itself the negative and must present itself as such. With the reflection of self-consciousness into the simple thought of itself, independent existence, or enduring determinateness, has in fact fallen out of infinity and stands opposite it; in skepticism, the complete inessentiality and dependence of this other now become present for consciousness. Thought becomes the complete thinking that annihilates the being of the manifoldly determined world, and the negativity of free self-consciousness becomes for itself, in this manifold configuration of life, real negativity. It is clear that just as Stoicism corresponds to the concept of independent consciousness that appeared as the relation of lordship and bondage, so skepticism corresponds to its realization, as the negative direction toward otherness, desire and work. But whereas desire and work could not carry out negation for self-consciousness, this polemical direction against the manifold independence of things will, by contrast, succeed, because it turns against them as a free self-consciousness already completed within itself; more precisely, because it has thinking, or infinity, within itself, and in this the independent elements, according to their difference, are for it only vanishing magnitudes. The differences that in the pure thinking of itself are only the 1807 136 abstraction of differences here become all differences, and all differentiated being becomes a difference of self-consciousness.
203 The doing of skepticism in general and its manner have thereby been determined. It exhibits the dialectical movement that sense-certainty, perception, and understanding are, as well as the lack of essence in what counts as determinate in the relation of ruling and serving, and for abstract thinking itself. That relation also contains within itself a determinate manner in which ethical laws, too, are present as commands of lordship; the determinations in abstract thinking, however, are concepts of science, into which contentless thinking expands, attaching the concept, in what is in fact only an external manner, to the being that is independent for it and constitutes its content, and accepting as valid only determinate concepts, even if they are also pure abstractions.
204 The dialectical, as negative movement as it immediately is, initially appears to consciousness as something to which it is delivered over and which is not through consciousness itself. As skepticism, by contrast, this movement is a moment of self-consciousness, for which it does not merely happen that its true and real vanish without its knowing how; rather, in the certainty of its freedom, self-consciousness itself lets this other, which presents itself as real, 1807 137 vanish. It lets vanish not only the objective as such, but its own attitude toward it, in which the objective counts and is asserted as objective: thus also its perceiving, its fixing of what it is in danger of losing, sophistry, and its true determined and established from itself. Through this self-conscious negation it procures for itself, for its own self, the certainty of its freedom, produces the experience of that freedom, and thereby raises it to truth. What vanishes is the determinate, or the difference that, in whatever manner and from whatever source, sets itself up as fixed and unalterable. It has nothing enduring within it and must vanish before thinking, because what is differentiated is precisely this: not to be in itself, but to have its essentiality only in another. Thinking, however, is insight into this nature of the differentiated; it is negative essence as simple.
205 Thus, in the alteration of everything that seeks to establish itself for it, skeptical self-consciousness experiences its own freedom as given and maintained through itself; it is for itself this ataraxia of thinking itself, the unalterable and true certainty of itself. This certainty does not emerge from something alien, whose manifold development has collapsed into itself, as a result that has left its becoming behind; rather, consciousness itself is absolute dialectical unrest, 1807 138 this mixture of sensuous and thought representations whose differences collapse, and whose equality likewise dissolves again—for equality is itself determinateness against the unequal. Yet precisely in this, instead of being self-equal consciousness, this consciousness is in fact only an utterly contingent confusion, the vertigo of an ever self-producing disorder. It is this for itself; for it itself maintains and produces this moving confusion. It therefore also acknowledges this; it acknowledges itself to be an entirely contingent, singular consciousness—an empirical consciousness, which follows what has no reality for it, obeys what is no essence for it, does and brings into actuality what has no truth for it. Yet just as it counts itself in this way as singular, contingent, and in fact animal life, and lost self-consciousness, so, conversely, it also again makes itself into the universal self-equal consciousness; for it is the negativity of all singularity and all difference. From this self-equality—or rather within it itself—it falls back again into that contingency and confusion, for precisely this moving negativity deals only with singulars and busies itself with contingencies. This consciousness is thus this unconscious rambling back and forth from one extreme of self-equal self-consciousness to the other of 1807 139 contingent, confused, and confusing consciousness. It does not itself bring these two thoughts of itself together; at one time it recognizes its freedom as elevation above all the confusion and contingency of existence, and at another equally acknowledges itself again as a falling-back into inessentiality and a wandering about within it. It lets the inessential content vanish in its thinking, but precisely therein it is consciousness of something inessential; it expresses absolute vanishing, but the expressing is, and this consciousness is the vanishing expressed. It declares the nullity of seeing, hearing, and so forth, and it itself sees, hears, and so forth; it declares the nullity of ethical essentialities and itself makes them the powers of its action. Its doing and its words always contradict one another, and it equally has within itself the twofold contradictory consciousness of unalterability and equality, and of complete contingency and inequality with itself. But it keeps this contradiction of itself apart, and behaves toward it as it does in its purely negative movement generally. If equality is pointed out to it, it points out inequality; and when this inequality that it has just expressed is now held before it, it passes over to pointing out equality. Its talk is in fact the quarrel of obstinate 1807 140 boys, one of whom says A when the other says B, and B again when the other says A, and who purchase, through contradiction with themselves, the pleasure of remaining in contradiction with one another.
206 In skepticism, consciousness truly experiences itself as a consciousness that contradicts itself; from this experience a new shape emerges, bringing together the two thoughts that skepticism keeps apart. Skepticism’s thoughtlessness about itself must disappear, because it is in fact one consciousness that contains both these modes. This new shape is therefore a consciousness that is for itself the doubled consciousness of itself as self-liberating, unchangeable, and equal to itself, and of itself as utterly self-confounding and self-inverting—and is the consciousness of this contradiction of its own.—In stoicism, self-consciousness is the simple freedom of itself; in skepticism, this freedom realizes itself and annihilates the other side, that of determinate existence, but instead doubles itself, and now finds itself to be twofold. Thus the doubling previously distributed between two individuals, the lord and the bondsman, has returned into one; the doubling of self-consciousness within itself, which is essential to the concept of spirit, is now present, but not yet its unity, and unhappy consciousness is consciousness 1807 141 of itself as a doubled, merely contradictory essence.
207 This unhappy consciousness, divided within itself, must therefore, because this contradiction of its essence is to it one consciousness, always have the other consciousness present within either one. Thus, precisely when it believes it has attained victory and the repose of unity, it is immediately driven out of each again. But its true return into itself, or its reconciliation with itself, will exhibit the concept of spirit become living and entered into existence, because it already contains this: as one undivided consciousness, it is doubled. It is itself the looking of one self-consciousness into another, and it is itself both; the unity of both is also its essence for it, but for itself it is not yet this essence itself, not yet the unity of both.
208 Since at first it is only the immediate unity of both, while for it the two are not the same but opposed, one of them, namely the simple, unchangeable consciousness, counts for it as essential, while the other, the manifold, changeable consciousness, counts as inessential. For it, the two are essences alien to each other; because it is consciousness of this contradiction, it places itself on the side of changeable consciousness and regards itself as inessential. But as consciousness of unchangeableness, or of simple essence, it must at the same time strive 1807 142 to free itself from the inessential—that is, from itself. For although for itself it is only the changeable consciousness, and the unchangeable is something alien to it, it is itself simple and therefore unchangeable consciousness, and is thus conscious of this as its essence, yet in such a way that, again, it itself, for itself, is not this essence. The position it assigns to the two therefore cannot be their indifference to each other, that is, cannot be its own indifference toward the unchangeable. Rather, it is immediately both itself, and for it the relation of the two is a relation of the essential to the inessential, so that the latter must be sublated. But since for it both are equally essential and contradictory, it is only the contradictory movement in which the opposite does not come to rest in its opposite, but reproduces itself there only as an opposite.
209 There is thus a struggle against an enemy over whom victory is instead defeat, in which attaining one thing means instead losing it in its opposite. Consciousness of life, of its existence and activity, is only pain over this existence and activity, for in them it is conscious only of its opposite as the essence, and of its own nullity. It passes beyond this in an ascent to the unchangeable. But this ascent is itself this consciousness; it is therefore immediately 1807 143 consciousness of the opposite, namely of itself as singularity. The unchangeable that enters consciousness is thereby at the same time touched by singularity, and is present only along with it; instead of singularity having been eradicated in consciousness of the unchangeable, it continually emerges there.
210 In this movement, however, consciousness experiences precisely this emergence of singularity in the unchangeable, and of the unchangeable in singularity. For it, singularity in general comes to be in the unchangeable essence, and at the same time its own singularity comes to be there. For the truth of this movement is precisely the oneness of this doubled consciousness. This unity comes to be for it, but initially it is itself a unity in which the difference between the two still predominates. Consciousness thus finds three ways in which singularity is linked with the unchangeable. First, it itself emerges again for itself as opposed to the unchangeable essence, and is thrown back to the beginning of the struggle, which remains the element of the whole relationship. Second, however, the unchangeable itself, for consciousness, has singularity within it, so that singularity is a shape of the unchangeable, to which the entire mode of existence thus passes over. Third, consciousness finds itself as this singular being in the unchangeable. The first unchangeable is for it only the alien essence that condemns singularity; 1807 144 since the second is a shape of singularity like itself, it becomes, third, spirit, has the joy of finding itself within it, and becomes conscious that its singularity is reconciled with the universal.
211 What presents itself here as the mode and relationship of the unchangeable emerged as the experience that divided self-consciousness undergoes in its unhappiness. This experience is admittedly not its one-sided movement, for it is itself unchangeable consciousness, and this is therefore at the same time singular consciousness; the movement is just as much the movement of unchangeable consciousness, which appears in it as much as the other does. For it runs through these moments: first being unchangeable in opposition to the singular in general, then itself singular in opposition to the other singular consciousness, and finally one with it. But this consideration, insofar as it belongs to us, is premature here, for so far only unchangeableness as the unchangeableness of consciousness has emerged for us. This is therefore not true unchangeableness, but still burdened with an opposition; the unchangeable in and for itself has not emerged, and we therefore do not know how it will behave. All that has emerged here is that, for the consciousness that is our object here, these indicated determinations appear in the unchangeable.
1807 145
212 For this reason, then, unchangeable consciousness, even in taking shape, retains the character and foundation of division and of being-for-itself over against singular consciousness. Thus, for the latter, the unchangeable’s receiving the shape of singularity is, in general, an event; likewise, singular consciousness merely finds itself opposed to it, and so has this relationship by nature. That it finally finds itself within the unchangeable does indeed appear to it as partly brought about by itself, or as occurring because it is itself singular; but a part of this unity belongs to the unchangeable, both as regards its origin and insofar as it exists, and the opposition remains within this unity itself. In fact, through the unchangeable’s taking shape, the moment of the beyond has not only remained but has instead been further entrenched. For although the shape of singular actuality seems, on the one hand, to have brought the unchangeable closer to consciousness, on the other hand it now confronts consciousness as an opaque, sensuous one, with all the unyielding resistance of something actual. The hope of becoming one with it must remain hope—that is, without fulfillment and presence—for between hope and fulfillment stands precisely the absolute contingency or immovable indifference that lies in this taking shape itself, the very ground of hope. Through the nature of the existent one, through the actuality it has 1807 146 assumed, it necessarily happens that it has vanished in time, has been in space and far away, and remains absolutely far away.
213 If at first the mere concept of divided consciousness determined itself as striving to sublate itself as singular and to become unchangeable consciousness, its striving now has this determination: rather, it must sublate its relationship to the pure, shapeless unchangeable and establish for itself only the relation to the unchangeable that has taken shape. For the oneness of the singular with the unchangeable is now its essence and object, just as in the concept only the shapeless, abstract unchangeable was the essential object; and the relationship constituted by this absolute division of the concept is now what it must turn away from. But it must raise its initially external relation to the shaped unchangeable, as an alien actuality, into an absolute becoming-one.
214 The movement in which inessential consciousness strives to attain this oneness is itself threefold, corresponding to the threefold relationship it will have to its beyond that has taken shape: first as pure consciousness; second as a singular being that relates to actuality through desire and work; and third as consciousness of its being-for-itself.—We must now see how these three modes of its being are present and determined within that general 1807 147 relationship.
215 First, then, considered as pure consciousness, the unchangeable that has taken shape seems, insofar as it is for pure consciousness, to be posited as it is in and for itself. Yet what it is in and for itself has, as already remarked, not yet emerged. Its being in consciousness as it is in and for itself would surely have to proceed from it rather than from consciousness. As things stand, however, its presence here is at first only one-sidedly brought about by consciousness, and is therefore not perfect and true, but remains burdened with imperfection or an opposition.
216 Yet although unhappy consciousness thus does not possess this presence, it has also gone beyond pure thinking insofar as this is stoicism’s abstract thinking, which looks away from singularity altogether, and skepticism’s merely restless thinking—which is in fact only singularity as unconscious contradiction and its ceaseless movement. It has gone beyond both: it brings pure thinking and singularity together and holds them together, but has not yet risen to that thinking for which the singularity of consciousness is reconciled with pure thinking itself. Rather, it stands midway, where abstract thinking touches the singularity of consciousness 1807 148 as singularity. It itself is this contact; it is the unity of pure thinking and singularity. For it, too, there is this thinking singularity, or pure thinking, and the unchangeable essentially exists itself as singularity. But it does not recognize for itself that this object of its own—the unchangeable, which for it essentially has the shape of singularity—is it itself: itself, which is the singularity of consciousness.
217 Therefore, in this first mode, in which we consider it as pure consciousness, it does not relate to its object through thought. Although it is itself in itself pure thinking singularity, and its object is just this, their relation to each other is not itself pure thinking. Thus it goes, so to speak, only toward thinking, and is devotion. As devotion, its thinking remains the shapeless resonance of pealing bells, or a warm, misty saturation, a musical thinking that does not attain the concept, which would be the sole immanent, objective mode. Its object does indeed come to this infinite, pure, inward feeling, but enters it as something not comprehended, and therefore as something alien. Thus there is present the inward movement of the pure heart, which feels itself, but painfully, as division: the movement of an infinite longing, certain that its essence is such a pure heart, pure thinking 1807 149 that thinks itself as singularity, and that this object, precisely because it thinks itself as singularity, knows and recognizes that longing. At the same time, however, this essence is the unattainable beyond, which flees as it is grasped, or rather has already fled. It has already fled: for on the one hand it is the unchangeable thinking itself as singularity, and consciousness therefore immediately reaches itself within it—itself, but as what is opposed to the unchangeable. Instead of grasping the essence, consciousness merely feels, and has fallen back into itself; since, in reaching it, consciousness cannot exclude itself as this opposite, it has grasped only inessentiality instead of the essence. Just as, on one side, in striving to reach itself in the essence, it grasps only its own separate actuality, so on the other it cannot grasp the other as singular, or as actual. Wherever it is sought, it cannot be found, for it is supposed to be precisely a beyond, something that cannot be found. Sought as singular, it is not a universal, a thought singularity, not concept, but a singular as object, or something actual: an object of immediate sense-certainty, and for that very reason only something that has vanished. Thus only the grave of its life can become present to consciousness. But because this is itself an actuality, and it is contrary 1807 150 to actuality’s nature to afford lasting possession, even this presence of the grave is only the struggle of an effort that must be lost. Yet once consciousness has experienced that the grave of its actual unchangeable essence has no actuality, that vanished singularity as vanished is not true singularity, it will give up seeking unchangeable singularity as actual, or holding fast to it as vanished. Only through this does it become capable of finding singularity as true, or as universal.
218 Initially, however, the heart’s return into itself must be understood as its having actuality for itself as a singular being. It is the pure heart that, for us or in itself, has found itself and is satisfied within itself. For although for it, in its feeling, essence separates itself from it, in itself this feeling is self-feeling: it has felt the object of its pure feeling, and this object is itself. It therefore emerges from this as self-feeling, or as something actual that is for itself. In this return into itself, its second relationship has come to be for us: that of desire and work. By sublating and enjoying the alien essence, namely that essence in the form of independent things, desire and work confirm for consciousness the inward certainty of itself that it has attained for us. But unhappy consciousness merely finds itself as 1807 151 *desiring and working; it is not aware that its finding itself in this way rests on inward certainty of itself, and that its feeling of essence is this self-feeling. Since it does not have this certainty for itself, its inwardness instead remains a fractured certainty of itself. The confirmation it would gain through work and enjoyment is therefore likewise fractured; or rather, it must itself destroy this confirmation, so that in it it does indeed find confirmation, but only confirmation of what it is for itself, namely its division.
219 For this consciousness, the actuality toward which desire and work are directed is no longer something null in itself, merely to be sublated and consumed by it. Rather, like consciousness itself, it is an actuality broken in two, which is null in itself only on one side, but on the other is also a sanctified world. It is a shape of the unchangeable, for the unchangeable has acquired singularity within itself; and because, as unchangeable, it is universal, its singularity has the significance of all actuality in general.
220 If consciousness were independent consciousness for itself, and actuality were for it null in and for itself, it would attain a feeling of its independence in work and enjoyment because it would itself be what 1807 152 sublated actuality. But since actuality is for it a shape of the unchangeable, it cannot sublate it by itself. Rather, although it does attain the annihilation of actuality and enjoyment, for it this happens essentially because the unchangeable itself surrenders its shape and leaves it to consciousness to enjoy.—Here consciousness, for its part, likewise appears as actual, but also as inwardly fractured; and in its working and enjoying this division exhibits itself as a break into a relationship to actuality, or being-for-itself, and a being-in-itself. The former relationship to actuality is alteration or activity, being-for-itself, which belongs to singular consciousness as such. But within this it is also in itself; this side belongs to the unchangeable beyond. These are its abilities and powers, an alien gift that the unchangeable likewise leaves to consciousness to use.
221 In its activity, then, consciousness initially stands in the relationship of two extremes. As the active here-and-now it stands on one side, and opposite it stands passive actuality; both are related to each other, but both have also withdrawn into the unchangeable and hold fast to themselves in themselves. Thus, on either side, only a surface detaches itself toward the other and enters into the interplay of movement against it.—The extreme of actuality is sublated by the active extreme; but actuality, 1807 153 for its part, can be sublated only because its unchangeable essence itself sublates it, repels itself from itself, and surrenders what has been repelled to activity. Active power appears as the might in which actuality dissolves. But for this consciousness, for which the in-itself, or essence, is something other than itself, this might, as which it appears in activity, is consequently the beyond of itself. Thus, instead of returning into itself from its activity and having confirmed itself for itself, consciousness instead reflects this movement of activity back into the other extreme. That extreme is thereby exhibited as purely universal, as the absolute might from which the movement has proceeded in every direction, and which is the essence both of the dissolving extremes as they first appeared and of the interchange itself.
222 Unchangeable consciousness renounces its shape and surrenders it, while singular consciousness gives thanks, that is, denies itself the satisfaction of being conscious of its independence, and assigns the essence of activity away from itself to the beyond. Through these two moments, in which both sides reciprocally give themselves up, consciousness does indeed come to possess its unity with the unchangeable. Yet this unity is also affected by separation, fractured within itself once more, and from it the opposition of the universal and the singular emerges again. For 1807 154 consciousness renounces the satisfaction of its self-feeling only in appearance, while obtaining its actual satisfaction; for it has been desire, work, and enjoyment; it, as consciousness, has willed, acted, and enjoyed. Likewise its giving thanks, in which it recognizes the other extreme as the essence and sublates itself, is itself its own activity, which counterbalances the other extreme’s activity and sets an equal activity against the benefit that surrenders itself. If that extreme leaves consciousness its surface, consciousness also, however, gives thanks; and in doing so, since it gives up its activity itself, that is, its essence, it actually does more than the other, which merely casts off a surface of itself. Thus the whole movement reflects itself into the extreme of singularity, not only in actual desiring, working, and enjoying, but even in giving thanks itself, where the opposite seems to happen. In this, consciousness feels itself to be this singular being, and does not let the semblance of its renunciation deceive it, for the truth of that renunciation is that it has not given itself up. What has come about is only the doubled reflection into the two extremes, and the result is a repeated splitting into the opposed consciousness of the unchangeable and consciousness of the opposed willing, accomplishing, enjoying, and renouncing itself—or of singularity that is for itself in general.
1807 155
223 Thus the third relationship in the movement of this consciousness has begun. It emerges from the second as a consciousness that has in truth proved itself independent through its willing and accomplishing. In the first relationship it was only the concept of actual consciousness, or the inward heart, which is not yet actual in activity and enjoyment; the second is this actualization as external activity and enjoyment. But having returned from this, consciousness is such that it has experienced itself as actual and effective consciousness, or for which it is true that it is in and for itself. Here, however, the enemy has now been discovered in its most characteristic shape. In the heart’s struggle, singular consciousness is present only as a musical, abstract moment; in work and enjoyment, as the realization of this essenceless being, it can immediately forget itself, and the conscious selfhood within this actuality is cast down by thankful recognition. Yet this casting down is in truth a return of consciousness into itself, specifically into itself as the actuality that is true for it.
224 This third relationship, in which this true actuality is one extreme, is its relation, as nullity, to universal essence; the movement of this relation remains to be considered.
1807 156
225 As regards, first, the opposed relation of consciousness, in which for it its reality is immediately what is null, its actual activity thus becomes an activity of nothing, its enjoyment a feeling of its unhappiness. Activity and enjoyment thereby lose all universal content and significance, for through these they would have a being-in-and-for-themselves; both withdraw into singularity, which consciousness is intent on sublating. Consciousness is conscious of itself as this actual singular being in its animal functions. Instead of being performed without concern, as something null in and for itself that can acquire no importance or essential significance for spirit, these functions—since it is in them that the enemy reveals itself in its distinctive shape—become the object of earnest endeavor, and precisely what matters most. But since this enemy reproduces itself in its defeat, consciousness, by fixing its attention on it, continually lingers over it instead of freeing itself, and constantly sees itself as defiled. At the same time the content of its endeavor, instead of being essential, is the lowest, and instead of being universal, is the most singular. We therefore see only a personality confined to itself and its petty activity, brooding over itself, as unhappy as it is impoverished.
226 But with both its feeling of unhappiness and the poverty of its activity there is 1807 157 likewise linked the consciousness of its unity with the unchangeable. For the attempted immediate annihilation of its actual being is mediated by the thought of the unchangeable, and takes place within this relation. The mediated relation constitutes the essence of the negative movement in which consciousness directs itself against its singularity; but as relation it is in itself equally positive, and will bring forth for consciousness itself this unity of its own.
227 This mediated relation is therefore a syllogism in which singularity, initially fixing itself as opposed to the in-itself, is joined to this other extreme only through a third. Through this middle term, the extreme of unchangeable consciousness is present for inessential consciousness; this also implies that inessential consciousness is likewise present for the former only through this middle term. Thus this middle term presents the two extremes to each other, and is the reciprocal servant of each with the other. This middle term is itself a conscious being, for it is an activity mediating consciousness as such; the content of this activity is the eradication that consciousness undertakes against its singularity.
228 In this relation, then, consciousness frees itself from activity and enjoyment as its own. As the extreme being for itself, it casts away the essence of its will and transfers to the middle term, or servant, the 1807 158 personal ownership and freedom of its decision, and with them the guilt of its activity. This mediator, as immediately related to the unchangeable essence, serves with his counsel concerning what is right. Since the action follows another’s decision, it ceases, on the side of activity or will, to be its own. But the objective side of the action still remains to inessential consciousness, namely the fruit of its work and enjoyment. It therefore casts this off as well, and renounces, as it does its will, the actuality acquired in work and enjoyment: partly as the attained truth of its self-conscious independence—by engaging in representing and speaking something wholly alien and meaningless to it; partly as external property—by giving away some of the possession it has acquired through work; and partly as the enjoyment it has had—by wholly denying it to itself again through fasting and mortification.
229 Through these moments of giving up its own decision, then its property and enjoyment, and finally the positive moment of pursuing a task it does not understand, consciousness truly and completely deprives itself of the consciousness of inward and outward freedom, of actuality as its being-for-itself. It has the certainty that it has in truth alienated its I and made its immediate self-consciousness into a 1807 159 *thing, an objective being.—It could confirm its renunciation of itself only through this actual sacrifice, for only in it does the deception disappear that lies in the inward recognition expressed by thanks in heart, disposition, and speech. Such recognition does indeed shift all the power of being-for-itself away from itself and attribute it to a gift from above; yet in this very shifting it retains its outward selfhood in the possession it does not surrender, and its inward selfhood in the consciousness of the decision it has itself made and in the consciousness of the content determined by itself, which it has not exchanged for an alien content that fills it meaninglessly.
230 But in the sacrifice actually accomplished, in itself, just as consciousness has sublated activity as its own, so too has its unhappiness departed from it. Yet that this departure has occurred in itself is an activity of the other extreme of the syllogism, which is the essence being in itself. That sacrifice of the inessential extreme, however, was at the same time not a one-sided activity, but contained the activity of the other within it. For giving up one’s own will is negative only on one side; according to its concept, or in itself, it is at the same time positive, namely the positing of the will as the will of another, and specifically as a will that is not singular but universal. For this 1807 160 consciousness, this positive significance of the singular will posited negatively is the will of the other extreme. Since that will is precisely something other for it, it comes to consciousness not through itself, but through the third, the mediator, as counsel. Thus for it its will does become universal will, a will being in itself, but it itself is not, for itself, this in-itself; giving up its own will as singular is not for it, in accordance with the concept, the positive character of universal will. Likewise its giving up possession and enjoyment has only the same negative significance, and the universal that thereby comes to be for it is not for it its own activity. This unity of objective being and being-for-itself, which lies in the concept of activity, and which therefore becomes for consciousness the essence and object—just as this unity is not for it the concept of its activity, neither does it recognize that this unity becomes an object for it immediately and through itself. Instead, it has the mediating servant pronounce for it this certainty, itself still fractured: that only in itself is its unhappiness the reverse, namely activity satisfying itself in its activity, or blessed enjoyment; that likewise its impoverished activity is in itself the reverse, namely absolute activity; and that, according to the concept, activity is activity at all only as the activity of the singular being. But for consciousness itself, activity, and its actual activity, remains impoverished, and its enjoyment remains pain; their sublatedness, 1807 161 in its positive significance, remains a beyond. Yet in this object, in which the activity and being of this singular consciousness are for it being and activity in themselves, there has arisen for it the representation of reason, of consciousness’s certainty that in its singularity it is absolutely in itself, or is all reality.
Plain English translation
Mouseia's complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the same complete German, paragraph by paragraph, in shorter sentences and everyday words.
1807 101
IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty.
166 In the modes of certainty considered so far, truth is for consciousness something other than itself. But the concept of this truth disappears in the experience of it. The object as it was immediately in itself—the being of sensory certainty, the concrete thing of perception, the force of understanding—proves instead not to be in truth. This in-itself emerges as a way in which the object is only for another. The concept of it sublates itself at the actual object, or the first immediate representation sublates itself in experience, and certainty was lost in truth. But now something has arisen that did not come about in those earlier relations: a certainty equal to its truth. For certainty is its own object, and consciousness is truth for itself. There is indeed otherness here too: consciousness distinguishes, but distinguishes something that for it 1807 102 is at the same time not distinguished. If we call the movement of knowing the concept, and knowing as a quiet unity, or as I, the object, we see that the object corresponds to the concept not just for us but for knowing itself. Or, put the other way, if we call what the object is in itself the concept, and what it is as object, or for another, the object, then it is clear that being-in-itself and being-for-another are the same. For the in-itself is consciousness. But consciousness is equally that for which another—the in-itself—is. And it is present for consciousness that the object's in-itself and its being for another are the same. I is the content of the relation and the relating itself. It is itself against another and at the same time reaches over this other, which for it is equally only itself.
167 With self-consciousness, then, we have now entered truth's native realm. We must see how the form of self-consciousness first appears. Consider this new form of knowing, knowing oneself, in relation to what preceded, knowing another. The latter has indeed disappeared, but its moments have equally been preserved. The loss consists in their now being present as they are in themselves. The being of meaning, the individuality and the 1807 103 opposed universality of perception, as well as understanding's empty inner, are no longer essences. They are moments of self-consciousness: abstractions or differences that for consciousness itself are at the same time null, or no differences, and purely disappearing essences. So only the main moment itself seems to have been lost: simple, independent subsistence for consciousness. But in fact self-consciousness is reflection out of the being of the sensory and perceived world, and essentially the return from otherness. As self-consciousness, it is movement. But insofar as it distinguishes only itself as itself from itself, difference as otherness is immediately sublated for it. Difference is not, and self-consciousness is only the motionless tautology “I am I.” Insofar as difference does not also have the form of being for it, it is not self-consciousness. Thus otherness is for it as a being, or as a distinguished moment. But the unity of itself with this difference is also for it as a second distinguished moment. With the first moment, self-consciousness as consciousness is preserved, and for it the whole spread of the sensory world is preserved. But this world is at the same time only related to the second moment, self-consciousness's unity with itself. It is therefore for self-consciousness a subsistence that is only appearance, or 1807 104 difference that in itself has no being. Yet this opposition between its appearance and its truth has only truth, the unity of self-consciousness with itself, as its essence. This unity must become essential for self-consciousness. That means it is desire in general. As self-consciousness, consciousness now has a double object. One is the immediate object, the object of sensory certainty and perceiving, but for consciousness marked with the character of the negative. The second is itself, which is the true essence and is initially present only in opposition to the first. Here self-consciousness presents itself as the movement in which this opposition is sublated and its equality with itself comes to be for it.
168 But the object that is negative for self-consciousness has, for its own part, for us or in itself, returned into itself just as much as consciousness has on the other side. Through this reflection into itself it has become life. What self-consciousness distinguishes from itself as being has, insofar as it is posited as being, not merely the mode of sensory certainty and perception. It is being reflected into itself, and the object of immediate desire is something living. For the in-itself, or the universal result of understanding's relation to the 1807 105 inner being of things, is the distinguishing of what cannot be distinguished, or the unity of what is distinguished. But as we have seen, this unity is equally its repulsion from itself. This concept splits into the opposition of self-consciousness and life. Self-consciousness is the unity for which the infinite unity of differences is. Life, however, is only this unity itself, so that the unity is not at the same time for itself. Thus, as independent as consciousness is, its object is equally independent in itself. Self-consciousness, which is simply for itself and immediately marks its object with the character of the negative, or is initially desire, will therefore instead experience the object's independence.
169 The determination of life emerging from the concept, or from the universal result with which we enter this sphere, is enough to characterize life without developing its nature further from it. Its circle closes in the following moments. Essence is infinity as the being-sublated of all differences: pure rotation on its axis, its own repose as absolutely restless infinity; independence itself, in which the differences of movement are dissolved; the simple essence of time that, in this self-sameness, has the solid shape of space. Yet the 1807 106 differences are just as much present in this simple universal medium as differences. For this universal fluidity has its negative nature only insofar as it is a sublation of them. But it cannot sublate the differentiated terms unless they have a subsistence. This very fluidity, as self-identical independence, is itself their subsistence, or substance, in which they thus are as differentiated members and parts existing for themselves. Being no longer means the abstraction of being, nor does their pure essentiality mean the abstraction of universality. Instead, their being is precisely that simple, fluid substance of pure movement within itself. The difference of these members from one another, however, as difference, consists in no determinacy other than that of the moments of infinity, or of pure movement itself.
170 The independent members are for themselves. But this being-for-itself is instead just as immediately their reflection into unity as this unity is the splitting into independent forms. Unity is divided because it is absolutely negative or infinite unity. And because it is subsistence, difference too has independence only within it. This independence of the form appears as something determinate, for another, since it is something divided. To that extent, the sublation of division happens through another. 1807 107 But it is equally within the form itself. For that very fluidity is the substance of the independent forms, and this substance is infinite. So in its subsistence itself, the form is the splitting, or the sublation of its being-for-itself.
171 If we distinguish the moments contained here more closely, we see that the first moment is the subsistence of independent forms, or the suppression of what distinguishing is in itself: not to be in itself and to have no subsistence. The second moment is the subjection of that subsistence to the infinity of difference. In the first moment is the subsisting form. As existing for itself, or as infinite substance in its determinacy, it confronts universal substance, denies this fluidity and its continuity with it, and asserts itself as not dissolved in this universal. Instead, it preserves itself by separating from this, its inorganic nature, and consuming it. Life in the universal fluid medium, a quiet laying-out of forms, thereby becomes the movement of those forms, or life as process. Simple universal fluidity is the in-itself, and the difference of forms is the other. But through this difference, fluidity itself becomes the other. For it is now for difference, which is in and for itself and is therefore 1807 108 the infinite movement that consumes that quiet medium: life as living. But this inversion is therefore again inversion within itself. What is consumed is essence. Individuality, preserving itself at the cost of the universal and giving itself the feeling of its unity with itself, thereby sublates precisely its opposition to the other, through which it is for itself. The unity with itself that it gives itself is precisely the fluidity of differences, or universal dissolution. Conversely, however, sublating individual subsistence equally produces it. For since the essence of the individual form is universal life, and what is for itself is in itself simple substance, in positing the other within itself it sublates this simplicity of its own, or its essence. That is, it divides it, and this dividing of undifferentiated fluidity is precisely the positing of individuality. So the simple substance of life is its splitting into forms and at the same time the dissolution of these subsisting differences. The dissolution of division is equally a dividing, or an articulation into members. The two sides of the whole movement that were distinguished thereby fall into one another: the shaping quietly laid out in the universal medium of independence, and the process of life. The latter is just as much shaping as it is sublation of form. 1807 109 And the first, shaping, is just as much a sublating as it is articulation. The fluid element is itself only the abstraction of essence, or is actual only as form. Its articulation is again a dividing of what has been articulated, or its dissolution. This whole circuit constitutes life. Life is neither what was first stated, the immediate continuity and solidity of its essence, nor the subsisting form and the discrete existing for itself, nor their pure process, nor even a simple gathering of these moments. It is the whole that develops itself, dissolves its development, and in this movement preserves itself as simple.
172 We started from the first immediate unity and, through the moments of shaping and process, returned to the unity of these two moments and thus back to the first simple substance. This reflected unity is therefore different from the first. Against that immediate unity, expressed as a being, this second unity is the universal, which has all these moments within it as sublated. It is the simple genus, which does not exist for itself as this simple in the movement of life itself. Instead, in this result, life points to something other than itself: consciousness, for which life is as this unity, or as genus.
1807 110
173 But this other life, for which genus exists as such and which is genus for itself—self-consciousness—is initially for itself only as this simple essence, and has itself as pure I for its object. In its experience, which we must now consider, this abstract object will grow richer for it and receive the unfolding that we have seen in life.
174 The simple I is this genus, or the simple universal for which differences are none, only by being the negative essence of the shaped, independent moments. Self-consciousness is therefore certain of itself only by sublating this other that presents itself as independent life. It is desire. Certain of this other's nullity, it posits that nullity for itself as its truth, destroys the independent object, and thereby gives itself self-certainty as true certainty: a certainty that has come to be for it itself in an objective way.
175 But in this satisfaction it experiences the independence of its object. Desire and the self-certainty reached in its satisfaction are conditioned by the object, for that certainty comes through sublating this other. For this sublation to be, this other must be. So self-consciousness cannot sublate the object through its negative relation to it. Instead, it therefore produces the object again, as well as desire. In 1807 111 fact, something other than self-consciousness is the essence of desire, and through this experience this truth has come to be for self-consciousness itself. Yet at the same time self-consciousness is equally absolutely for itself, and is so only by sublating the object. Its satisfaction must come to be for it, for it is truth. Because of the object's independence, self-consciousness can therefore reach satisfaction only when the object itself carries out negation within itself. The object must carry out this self-negation within itself because it is in itself the negative and must be for the other what it is. In being negation within itself and at the same time independent in this, it is consciousness. In life, which is the object of desire, negation is either in another, namely in desire; or it is determinacy against another indifferent form; or it is life's inorganic universal nature. But this universal independent nature, in which negation is absolute, is genus as such, or as self-consciousness. Self-consciousness reaches its satisfaction only in another self-consciousness.
176 Only in these three moments is the concept of self-consciousness complete. a) Pure, undifferentiated I is its first immediate object. b) But this immediacy is itself absolute mediation. It is only as sublation of the independent object, or it is desire. The 1807 112 satisfaction of desire is indeed self-consciousness's reflection into itself, or certainty become truth. c) But the truth of this certainty is instead doubled reflection, the doubling of self-consciousness. There is an object for consciousness that within itself posits its otherness, or difference, as null and is independent in doing so. The differentiated, merely living form certainly also sublates its independence in the process of life itself. But together with its difference, it ceases to be what it is. The object of self-consciousness, however, is equally independent in this negativity of itself. It is thereby genus for itself, universal fluidity in the particularity of its separation. It is living self-consciousness.
177 There is a self-consciousness for a self-consciousness. Only through this is self-consciousness in fact, for only here does its unity with itself in its otherness come to be for it. I, which is the object of its concept, is in fact not an object. But the object of desire is only independent, for it is universal, indestructible substance, the fluid, self-identical essence. When a self-consciousness is the object, it is just as much I as object. With this, the concept of spirit is already present for us. What comes to be further for consciousness is the experience of what 1807 113 spirit is: this absolute substance that is the unity of its opposites in their complete freedom and independence—namely, different self-consciousnesses existing for themselves. It is I that is we, and we that is I. Only in self-consciousness as the concept of spirit does consciousness reach its turning point. Here it steps from the colorful seeming of the sensory here-and-now, and from the empty night of the supersensible beyond, into the spiritual daylight of the present.
1807 114
A. Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness; Mastery and Servitude.
178 Self-consciousness is in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it is in and for itself for another. That is, it is only as something recognized. The concept of this unity in its doubling, of infinity realizing itself in self-consciousness, is an interweaving with many sides and meanings. Its moments must therefore partly be kept strictly apart, and partly, in this distinction, also be taken and known as not distinguished, or always in their opposite meaning. The ambiguity of what is distinguished lies in self-consciousness's essence: being infinite, or immediately the opposite of the determinacy in which it is posited. Unfolding the concept of this spiritual unity in its doubling presents us with the movement of recognition.
179 For self-consciousness there is another self-consciousness. It has come outside itself. 1807 115 This has a double meaning. First, it has lost itself, for it finds itself as another essence. Second, it has thereby sublated the other, for it does not see the other as essence either, but sees itself in the other.
180 It must sublate this otherness of its own. This sublates the first ambiguity and is therefore itself a second ambiguity. First, it must set out to sublate the other independent essence, in order thereby to become certain of itself as essence. Second, it thereby sets out to sublate itself, for this other is itself.
181 This ambiguous sublation of its ambiguous otherness is equally an ambiguous return into itself. For first, through the sublation it gets itself back: it becomes equal to itself again by sublating its otherness. Second, it equally gives the other self-consciousness back to itself. For self-consciousness was itself in the other; it sublates this being of its own in the other and thus releases the other again.
182 Yet this movement of self-consciousness in relation to another self-consciousness has been presented in this way as the action of one. But this action of one itself has the double meaning of being both its action and the other's action. For the other is equally independent, closed within itself, and there is nothing in it that is not through itself. The first 1807 116 does not have before it an object of the kind that initially exists only for desire. Its object is independent, existing for itself. So the first can do nothing to it on its own unless the object does within itself what the first does to it. Thus the movement is simply the doubled movement of both self-consciousnesses. Each sees the other do the same as it does. Each itself does what it demands of the other. It therefore also does what it does only insofar as the other does the same. One-sided action would be useless, because what is to happen can come about only through both.
183 So the action is ambiguous not only because it is action both against itself and against the other, but also because it is inseparably both the action of one and of the other.
184 In this movement we see the process that appeared as the play of forces repeated, but now in consciousness. What was for us in that process is here for the extremes themselves. The middle is self-consciousness, which breaks apart into the extremes. Each extreme is this exchange of its determinacy and absolute passage into the opposite. As consciousness, it does indeed come outside itself. Yet in being outside itself it is also held back within itself, for itself, and its being-outside-itself is for it. It is present for it that it immediately is and 1807 117 is not another consciousness. Equally, this other is for itself only by sublating itself as existing for itself, and is for itself only in the other's being-for-itself. Each is for the other the middle through which each mediates and joins itself with itself. And each is, for itself and the other, an immediate essence existing for itself, which is at the same time for itself in this way only through this mediation. They recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.
185 We must now consider this pure concept of recognition, the doubling of self-consciousness in its unity, as its process appears for self-consciousness. It will first present the side of the inequality of the two, or the middle's emergence into extremes. As extremes, they are opposed: one is only recognized, the other only recognizing.
186 Self-consciousness is initially simple being-for-itself, equal to itself through excluding everything else from itself. Its essence and absolute object is for it I. In this immediacy, or this being of its being-for-itself, it is individual. Whatever else is for it exists as an inessential object marked with the character of the negative. But the other is also a self-consciousness. An individual appears opposite an individual. Appearing so immediately, they are for one another in the manner of ordinary objects: independent forms, consciousnesses immersed in the being 1807 118 of life—for the existing object has here been determined as life. They have not yet accomplished for one another the movement of absolute abstraction, of eradicating all immediate being and being only the purely negative being of self-identical consciousness. Or they have not yet presented themselves to one another as pure being-for-itself, that is, as self-consciousness. Each is indeed certain of itself, but not of the other. Its own certainty of itself therefore has no truth yet. For its truth would consist only in its own being-for-itself presenting itself to it as an independent object—or, what is the same, in the object presenting itself as this pure self-certainty. But according to the concept of recognition, this is possible only when, as the other does for it, so it does for the other: each accomplishes this pure abstraction of being-for-itself within itself through its own action, and again through the other's action.
187 But presenting itself as the pure abstraction of self-consciousness consists in showing itself as pure negation of its objective mode, or showing that it is tied to no determinate existence, not to the universal individuality of existence in general, not to life. This presentation is the double action: action of the other and action through oneself. Insofar as it is action of the other, each therefore aims at 1807 119 the other's death. But the second action, action through oneself, is also present in this, since the first involves staking one's own life. Thus the relation of the two self-consciousnesses is determined in such a way that they prove themselves to themselves and one another through a struggle of life and death. They must enter this struggle, for they must raise their certainty of themselves, of being for themselves, to truth in the other and in themselves. Only by staking life is freedom proved. Only in this way is it proved that self-consciousness's essence is not being, not the immediate manner in which it appears, not its immersion in the spread of life; that nothing is present in it that would not be a disappearing moment for it; that it is only pure being-for-itself. The individual who has not risked life may indeed be recognized as a person, but has not reached the truth of this recognition as an independent self-consciousness. Just as each stakes its life, each must likewise aim at the other's death. For the other counts for no more with it than it itself does. Its essence presents itself as another; it is outside itself and must sublate its being-outside-itself. The other is consciousness entangled in many ways and existing. Self-consciousness must intuit its otherness as pure being-for-itself, or as absolute negation.
1807 120
188 But this proving through death equally sublates the truth that was supposed to emerge from it, and thereby also self-certainty in general. For just as life is consciousness's natural positing, independence without absolute negativity, death is its natural negation, negation without independence, which therefore remains without the required meaning of recognition. Through death, certainty has indeed come to be that both risked their lives and held life in contempt in themselves and in the other—but not for those who underwent this struggle. They sublate their consciousness posited in this alien essentiality, natural existence. Or they sublate themselves and are sublated as extremes wanting to be for themselves. But with this, the essential moment disappears from the play of exchange: splitting into extremes of opposed determinacies. The middle collapses into a dead unity, divided into dead extremes that merely are and are not opposed. The two do not mutually give themselves back to one another and receive themselves from one another through consciousness. They merely release one another indifferently, as things. Their deed is abstract negation, not the negation of consciousness that sublates in such a way as to preserve and maintain what is sublated, and thus survives its own being-sublated.
1807 121
189 In this experience self-consciousness comes to see that life is as essential to it as pure self-consciousness. In immediate self-consciousness, the simple I is the absolute object. But for us, or in itself, this object is absolute mediation and has subsisting independence as an essential moment. Dissolving that simple unity is the result of the first experience. Through it, a pure self-consciousness is posited, along with a consciousness that is not purely for itself but for another: that is, as existing consciousness, or consciousness in the form of thinghood. Both moments are essential. Since initially they are unequal and opposed, and their reflection into unity has not yet emerged, they exist as two opposed forms of consciousness. One is independent, taking being-for-itself as its essence. The other is dependent, taking life or being-for-another as its essence. The former is the master, the latter the servant.
190 The master is consciousness existing for itself, but no longer merely its concept. He is consciousness existing for itself and mediated with itself through another consciousness, one whose essence includes being joined with independent being, or thinghood in general. The master relates to these two moments: a thing as such, 1807 122 the object of desire, and the consciousness for which thinghood is essential. As a) the concept of self-consciousness, he is immediate relation of being-for-itself. But b) he is now also mediation, or a being-for-itself that is for itself only through another. He therefore relates a) immediately to both, and b) mediately to each through the other. The master relates to the servant mediately through independent being. For this is precisely what holds the servant. It is his chain, from which he could not abstract in the struggle. He therefore proved dependent, having his independence in thinghood. But the master is power over this being, for he proved in the struggle that it counts for him only as something negative. Since he is power over this being, and this being is power over the other, in this syllogism he has the other under him. Likewise, the master relates mediately through the servant to the thing. As self-consciousness in general, the servant also relates negatively to the thing and sublates it. But at the same time the thing is independent for him, so in negating it he cannot be done with it to the point of destroying it. He only works on it. For the master, by contrast, through this mediation there comes to be the immediate relation as pure negation of the thing, or enjoyment. What desire failed to do, he succeeds in doing: being done with the thing and satisfying himself 1807 123 in enjoyment. Desire failed because of the thing's independence. But the master, having inserted the servant between the thing and himself, thereby joins himself only to the thing's dependence and enjoys it purely. He leaves the side of independence to the servant who works on it.
191 In these two moments, the master's being-recognized through another consciousness comes to be for him. For that consciousness posits itself in them as inessential: once in working on the thing, the other time in dependence on a determinate existence. In neither can it master being and reach absolute negation. Thus this moment of recognition is present here: the other consciousness sublates itself as being-for-itself and thereby itself does what the first does against it. The other moment is likewise present: this action of the second is the first's own action. For what the servant does is really the master's action. For the master, only being-for-itself is essence. He is the pure negative power for which the thing is nothing, and therefore the purely essential action in this relation. The servant, however, is not pure but inessential action. Yet genuine recognition lacks this moment: that the master should also do against himself what he does against the other, and that the servant should also do against the other what he does against himself. A 1807 124 one-sided and unequal recognition has thereby arisen.
192 In this relation, inessential consciousness is for the master the object that constitutes the truth of his self-certainty. But clearly this object does not correspond to its concept. Instead, in what the master has accomplished himself in, something entirely different from an independent consciousness has come to be for him. What is for him is not an independent consciousness but a dependent one. He is therefore not certain of being-for-itself as truth. Instead, his truth is inessential consciousness and its inessential action.
193 The truth of independent consciousness is therefore servile consciousness. This admittedly appears at first outside itself and not as the truth of self-consciousness. But just as mastery showed that its essence is the reverse of what it wants to be, so servitude too, in its accomplishment, will instead become the opposite of what it immediately is. As consciousness driven back into itself, it will enter itself and turn into true independence.
194 We have seen only what servitude is in relation to mastery. But it is self-consciousness, and we must now consider what it accordingly is in and for itself. Initially, for 1807 125 servitude the master is essence. Thus independent consciousness existing for itself is its truth, but for it this truth is not yet within itself. Yet it does in fact have within itself this truth of pure negativity and being-for-itself, for it has experienced this essence within itself. This consciousness was anxious not about this or that, nor for this or that moment, but about its whole essence. For it felt the fear of death, the absolute master. In that fear it was inwardly dissolved, trembled through and through within itself, and everything fixed in it shook. But this pure universal movement, this absolute liquefying of all subsistence, is the simple essence of self-consciousness, absolute negativity, pure being-for-itself, which is therefore within this consciousness. This moment of pure being-for-itself is also for it, since in the master it is its object. Further, consciousness is not merely this universal dissolution in general. In serving, it carries out the dissolution actually. In every individual moment, it sublates its attachment to natural existence and works that existence away.
195 But the feeling of absolute power, both in general and in the particulars of service, is only dissolution in itself. Although fear of the master is the beginning of wisdom, consciousness is not in this, for itself, being-for-itself. Through work, however, it comes to itself. In the moment 1807 126 corresponding to desire in the master's consciousness, serving consciousness did seem to receive the side of the inessential relation to the thing, since the thing keeps its independence in this relation. Desire reserved to itself the pure negation of the object and thereby the unmixed feeling of self. But this satisfaction is itself only a disappearing, because it lacks the objective side, or subsistence. Work, by contrast, is restrained desire, delayed disappearance: it forms. The negative relation to the object becomes the object's form, something enduring, precisely because the object has independence for the worker. This negative middle, or formative action, is at the same time consciousness's individuality, or pure being-for-itself, which now, in work, steps outside consciousness into the element of endurance. Working consciousness thereby comes to intuit independent being as itself.
196 But forming has not only this positive meaning: that in it serving consciousness becomes for itself something that is, as pure being-for-itself. It also has a negative meaning against its first moment, fear. For in shaping the thing, its own negativity, its being-for-itself, becomes an object for it only by its sublating the opposed, existing form. But this objective negative is precisely the alien essence before which it 1807 127 trembled. Now, however, it destroys this alien negative and posits itself as such a negative in the element of endurance. It thereby becomes for its own self something existing for itself. In the master, being-for-itself is for it another, or only for it. In fear, being-for-itself is within it. In forming, being-for-itself becomes for it its own, and it becomes conscious that it itself is in and for itself. Being set outside does not make form something other than consciousness, for form is precisely its pure being-for-itself, which therein becomes truth for it. By finding itself again through itself, it therefore gains a mind of its own, precisely in the work in which it seemed to be only someone else's mind. Both moments—fear and service in general, as well as forming—are necessary for this reflection, and both in a universal manner. Without the discipline of service and obedience, fear remains formal and does not spread over the conscious actuality of existence. Without forming, fear stays inward and mute, and consciousness does not become for itself. If consciousness forms without that first absolute fear, it is only a vain mind of its own. For its form, or negativity, is not negativity in itself, and its forming therefore cannot give it consciousness of itself as essence. If it has endured not absolute fear but only some anxiety, negative essence has remained 1807 128 external to it, and has not infected its substance through and through. Since not all the contents of its natural consciousness have been shaken, it still belongs in itself to determinate being. The mind of its own is stubbornness: a freedom that still remains within servitude. Just as little as pure form can become its essence, so, considered as spread over the particular, it is not universal forming, not absolute concept, but a skill that masters only some things, not universal power and the whole objective essence.
1807 129
B. Freedom of Self-Consciousness; Stoicism, Skepticism, and the Unhappy Consciousness.
197 For independent self-consciousness, on one side only the pure abstraction of the I is its essence. On the other, as this abstraction develops and gives itself differences, this distinguishing does not become for self-consciousness an objective essence existing in itself. So this self-consciousness does not become an I that truly distinguishes itself in its simplicity, or remains equal to itself in this absolute distinction. Consciousness driven back into itself, by contrast, becomes an object for itself in forming, as the form of the shaped things. In the master it also intuits being-for-itself as consciousness. But for serving consciousness as such, these two moments fall apart: itself as independent object, and this object as a consciousness and thus as its own essence. Yet for us, or in itself, form and being-for-itself are the same. And in the 1807 130 concept of independent consciousness, being-in-itself is consciousness. So the side of being-in-itself, or thinghood, that form received in work is no other substance than consciousness. A new form of self-consciousness has come to be for us: a consciousness that takes itself, as infinity or the pure movement of consciousness, as essence; a consciousness that thinks, or is free self-consciousness. For being an object to oneself not as abstract I but as I that also has the meaning of being-in-itself, or relating to objective essence so that it has the meaning of the being-for-itself of the consciousness for which it is, means thinking. For thinking, the object moves not in representations or shapes but in concepts: in a differentiated being-in-itself that immediately is no different from consciousness for consciousness. What is represented, shaped, existing, as such, has the form of being something other than consciousness. But a concept is also something that is—and this difference, insofar as it is within the concept itself, is its determinate content. Yet because this content is at the same time comprehended, consciousness remains immediately aware of its unity with this determinate and differentiated being. It is not like representation, in which consciousness must still remind itself expressly that this is its representation. Instead, the concept is immediately my 1807 131 concept. In thinking I am free, because I am not in another but remain simply with myself. The object that is essence for me is, in undivided unity, my being-for-myself. My movement in concepts is a movement within myself. But in this determination of this form of self-consciousness, it is essential to hold firmly that it is thinking consciousness in general, or that its object is the immediate unity of being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Self-identical consciousness, repelling itself from itself, becomes for itself an element existing in itself. But so far it is this element for itself only as universal essence in general, not as this objective essence in the development and movement of its manifold being.
198 This freedom of self-consciousness, when it appeared in the history of spirit as an appearance conscious of itself, was, as is well known, called Stoicism. Its principle is that consciousness is a thinking essence, and that something has essentiality for it, or is true and good for it, only insofar as consciousness behaves in it as a thinking essence.
199 Life's manifold spread, differentiation, isolation, and entanglement is the object on which desire and work act. This manifold activity has now drawn together into the simple distinction 1807 132 within the pure movement of thinking. Essentiality no longer belongs to the difference that presents itself as a determinate thing, or as consciousness of a determinate natural existence, as a feeling, or as desire and a purpose for desire—whether posited by one's own or by an alien consciousness. Essentiality belongs only to the difference that is thought, or immediately not distinguished from me. This consciousness therefore takes a negative stance toward the relation of mastery and servitude. Its action is to have its truth neither in the servant when it is master, nor in the master's will and its service when it is servant. Instead, whether on the throne or in chains, in all the dependence of its individual existence, it is to be free and to preserve the lifelessness that constantly withdraws from the movement of existence, from acting as from suffering, into the simple essentiality of thought. Stubbornness is freedom attached to an individuality and standing within servitude. Stoicism, however, is freedom that always comes immediately out of servitude and returns into the pure universality of thought. As a universal form of world spirit, it could appear only in a time of universal fear and servitude, but also of universal cultivation, which had raised forming to the level of thinking.
1807 133
200 For this self-consciousness, essence is neither something other than itself nor the pure abstraction of the I. Instead, it is I that has otherness within it, but as a thought difference, so that in its otherness it has immediately returned into itself. Yet this essence of its own is at the same time only an abstract essence. The freedom of self-consciousness is indifferent to natural existence and has therefore equally released it freely. The reflection is doubled. Freedom in thought has only pure thought as its truth, without the fullness of life. So it is also only the concept of freedom, not living freedom itself. For so far only thinking in general is its essence: form as such, which has returned into itself away from the independence of things. But individuality is supposed either to present itself as living in action or, as thinking, to grasp the living world as a system of thought. In thought itself, therefore, there would have to be a content: of what is good for the former expansion, and of what is true for the latter. Then throughout what is for consciousness there would be no other ingredient than the concept, which is essence. But as it separates itself here as an abstraction from the multiplicity of things, it has no content within itself, but a given content. Consciousness does indeed eradicate the content as an alien being by thinking it. But the 1807 134 concept is a determinate concept, and this determinacy of its own is the alien element within it. Stoicism was therefore embarrassed when asked, as the expression went, for the criterion of truth in general—that is, really, for a content of thought itself. Asked what is good and true, it answered again with contentless thinking itself: truth and goodness were supposed to consist in rationality. But this self-sameness of thinking is again only pure form in which nothing is determined. The general words about truth and goodness, wisdom and virtue, at which Stoicism must stop, may therefore be uplifting in general. But because they cannot in fact reach any expansion of content, they soon begin to bore.
201 Thus this thinking consciousness, as it has determined itself as abstract freedom, is only the incomplete negation of otherness. Merely withdrawn into itself from existence, it has not accomplished itself within itself as the absolute negation of existence. For it, content counts only as thought, but at the same time as determinate thought, and determinacy as such also counts.
202 Skepticism is the realization of what Stoicism is only the concept of, and the actual experience of what freedom of thought 1807 135 is. This freedom is in itself the negative and must present itself as such. With self-consciousness's reflection into the simple thought of itself, independent existence or enduring determinacy has in fact fallen out of infinity and stands opposite that reflection. In skepticism, the complete inessentiality and dependence of this other now comes to be for consciousness. Thought becomes complete thinking that destroys the being of the multiply determined world. The negativity of free self-consciousness becomes for itself real negativity in this manifold shaping of life. Clearly, just as Stoicism corresponds to the concept of independent consciousness that appeared as the relation of mastery and servitude, skepticism corresponds to its realization as the negative direction toward otherness, desire and work. But whereas desire and work could not carry out negation for self-consciousness, this polemical direction against the manifold independence of things will succeed. For it turns against them as free self-consciousness already completed within itself. More precisely, it has thinking, or infinity, within itself, and in this the independent things, in their difference, are for it only disappearing magnitudes. The differences that in pure thinking of itself are only the 1807 136 abstraction of differences here become all differences. All differentiated being becomes a difference of self-consciousness.
203 The action of skepticism in general and its manner are thereby determined. It points out the dialectical movement that sensory certainty, perception, and understanding are. It likewise points out the inessentiality of what counts as determinate in the relation of ruling and serving and for abstract thinking itself. That relation also includes a determinate manner in which ethical laws are present as commands of mastery. The determinations in abstract thinking, however, are concepts of science. Contentless thinking expands into these, attaches the concept in what is in fact only an external way to the being that is independent for it and forms its content, and takes only determinate concepts as valid, even if they are pure abstractions.
204 The dialectical, as negative movement in the way it immediately is, initially appears to consciousness as something to which it is surrendered and that is not through consciousness itself. As skepticism, however, it is a moment of self-consciousness. Here it does not simply happen to self-consciousness that its truth and reality disappear without its knowing how. Instead, certain of its freedom, self-consciousness itself makes this other that claims to be real 1807 137 disappear. It makes disappear not only the objective as such, but its own behavior toward it, in which it counts and is asserted as objective. Thus it also makes disappear its perceiving, its fixing of what it is in danger of losing—sophistry—and its truth determined and established from itself. Through this self-conscious negation, consciousness acquires for itself the certainty of its freedom, produces the experience of that freedom, and thereby raises it to truth. What disappears is the determinate, or difference that sets itself up as fixed and unchangeable, in whatever manner and from whatever source. It has nothing enduring within it and must disappear before thinking. For what is differentiated is precisely this: not to be within itself, but to have its essentiality only in another. Thinking, however, is insight into this nature of what is differentiated. It is negative essence as simple.
205 Thus, amid the change of everything that wants to establish itself firmly for it, skeptical self-consciousness experiences its own freedom as given and preserved through itself. It is for itself this calm of thinking itself, the unchangeable and genuine certainty of itself. This certainty does not emerge from an alien thing whose manifold development collapsed into itself, as a result that would have its becoming behind it. Instead, consciousness itself is absolute dialectical restlessness: 1807 138 this mixture of sensory and thought representations whose differences collapse and whose equality equally dissolves again, since equality is itself determinacy against the unequal. But precisely in this, instead of being self-identical consciousness, this consciousness is in fact only a wholly accidental confusion, the dizziness of a disorder constantly producing itself. It is this for itself, since it itself maintains and produces this moving confusion. It therefore also admits this: it admits being an entirely accidental, individual consciousness—an empirical consciousness that follows what has no reality for it, obeys what is no essence for it, and does and actualizes what has no truth for it. But just as in this way it counts for itself as individual, accidental, and in fact animal life, and as lost self-consciousness, it conversely makes itself once more into the universal, self-identical consciousness. For it is the negativity of all individuality and all difference. From this self-sameness—or rather within it—it falls back into that accident and confusion. For this very moving negativity deals only with individual things and busies itself with the accidental. This consciousness is therefore this unconscious rambling, going back and forth from one extreme, self-identical self-consciousness, to the other, 1807 139 accidental, confused, and confusing consciousness. It does not itself bring these two thoughts of itself together. At one time it recognizes its freedom as elevation above all confusion and all the accident of existence; at another it equally admits itself to be a relapse into inessentiality and a wandering about within it. It makes inessential content disappear in its thinking, but in doing so it is consciousness of something inessential. It declares absolute disappearance, but the declaring is, and this consciousness is the disappearance declared. It declares the nullity of seeing, hearing, and so on, and it itself sees, hears, and so on. It declares the nullity of ethical essences and itself makes them the powers of its action. Its action and its words always contradict one another. Likewise, it itself has the double, contradictory consciousness of unchangeability and self-sameness, and of complete accident and inequality with itself. But it keeps this self-contradiction apart, behaving here as it does in its purely negative movement generally. If equality is pointed out to it, it points out inequality. And when this inequality, which it has just expressed, is now held up to it, it moves on to pointing out equality. Its talk is in fact the bickering of stubborn 1807 140 boys: one says A when the other says B, and B again when the other says A. By contradicting themselves, they buy the pleasure of remaining in contradiction with one another.
206 In skepticism, consciousness truly experiences itself as a consciousness that contradicts itself. This experience produces a new shape that brings together the two thoughts skepticism keeps apart. Skepticism's thoughtlessness about itself must disappear, because it is actually one consciousness that contains both these ways of being. The new shape is therefore a consciousness that is for itself the doubled consciousness of itself: of itself as freeing itself, unchanging, and self-identical, and of itself as utterly confusing and reversing itself. It is also consciousness of this contradiction. In stoicism, self-consciousness is its own simple freedom. In skepticism, this freedom becomes real and destroys the other side, determinate existence. But instead it doubles itself and now finds itself twofold. The doubling previously divided between two individuals, lord and servant, has thus returned into one. Self-consciousness's doubling within itself, which is essential to the concept of spirit, is now present, but its unity is not yet present. Unhappy consciousness is consciousness 1807 141 of itself as a doubled being that only contradicts itself.
207 Because the contradiction in its being is one consciousness, this unhappy consciousness, divided within itself, must always contain the other consciousness within either one. Just when it thinks it has won and reached the peace of unity, it must immediately be driven out of each again. Its true return into itself, or reconciliation with itself, will present the concept of spirit that has come alive and entered existence. For it already has this feature: as one undivided consciousness, it is doubled. It is itself one self-consciousness looking into another. It is itself both, and it also takes their unity as its essence. But for itself it is not yet this essence itself, not yet their unity.
208 At first it is only the immediate unity of the two. For it, however, they are not the same but opposed. So it regards one, the simple and unchanging, as essential, and the other, the varied and changing, as inessential. For it, the two are beings alien to each other. Since it is consciousness of this contradiction, it places itself on the side of changing consciousness and regards itself as inessential. Yet as consciousness of the unchanging, or simple essence, it must also seek 1807 142 to free itself from the inessential—that is, from itself. For although for itself it is only the changing consciousness, and the unchanging is something alien to it, it is itself simple and therefore unchanging consciousness. It is thus conscious of this as its essence, yet in such a way that it itself, for itself, is again not this essence. The position it gives the two therefore cannot be one of indifference toward each other: it cannot itself be indifferent to the unchanging. Instead, it immediately is both itself. For it, their relationship is the relationship of essence to what lacks essence, so that the latter must be sublated. Yet since both are equally essential to it and contradictory, it is only the contradictory movement in which an opposite does not find rest in its opposite, but only produces itself anew there as an opposite.
209 This is a struggle against an enemy in which victory is instead defeat, and attaining one thing instead means losing it in its opposite. Consciousness of life, of its existence and activity, is only pain over this existence and activity. In them it is conscious only of its opposite as the essence, and of its own nothingness. It passes from this to rising toward the unchanging. But this rising is itself this consciousness. It is therefore immediately 1807 143 consciousness of the opposite, namely of itself as an individual. The unchanging that enters consciousness is thereby also touched by individuality and present only along with it. Instead of being erased in consciousness of the unchanging, individuality keeps emerging within it.
210 In this movement, however, it experiences precisely this emergence of individuality in the unchanging and of the unchanging in individuality. For it, individuality in general comes to be in the unchanging essence, and at the same time its own individuality comes to be there. For the truth of this movement is precisely the oneness of this doubled consciousness. This unity comes to be for it, but at first as a unity in which the difference between the two still dominates. It therefore has three ways in which individuality is linked with the unchanging. First, it again emerges for itself as opposed to the unchanging essence. It is thrown back to the beginning of the struggle, which remains the element of the whole relationship. Second, the unchanging itself has individuality in it for consciousness, so that individuality is a shape of the unchanging. The whole manner of existence thus passes over to the unchanging. Third, consciousness finds itself as this individual in the unchanging. The first unchanging is for it only the alien essence that condemns individuality. 1807 144 Since the second is a shape of individuality like itself, it becomes, third, spirit. It has the joy of finding itself in it and becomes conscious that its individuality is reconciled with the universal.
211 What appears here as the way the unchanging is and relates has emerged as the experience divided self-consciousness undergoes in its unhappiness. This experience is not, admittedly, its one-sided movement. It is itself unchanging consciousness, which is therefore also individual consciousness. The movement is just as much the movement of unchanging consciousness, which appears in it as much as the other does. For the movement runs through these moments: first, the unchanging is opposed to the individual in general; then, itself individual, it is opposed to the other individual; finally, it is one with it. But this consideration, insofar as it belongs to us, is premature here. So far, what has emerged for us is only unchangeability as the unchangeability of consciousness. This is therefore not true unchangeability but still burdened with an opposition. The unchanging in and for itself has not emerged. We therefore do not know how it will behave. All that has emerged here is that these indicated determinations of the unchanging appear to the consciousness that is our object here.
1807 145
212 For this reason, unchanging consciousness, even in taking shape, retains the character and basis of division and of being for itself over against individual consciousness. For the latter, the unchanging's receiving the shape of individuality is therefore something that simply happens. Likewise, it only finds itself opposed to the unchanging, and so has this relationship by nature. Its finally finding itself in the unchanging does appear to it partly as something it has brought about itself, or as occurring because it is itself individual. But part of this unity belongs to the unchanging, both in its coming about and in its being. The opposition remains within this unity itself. In fact, the unchanging's taking shape has not merely preserved its character as a beyond, but strengthened it. On one side, the shape of individual actuality seems to have brought it nearer. On the other, it now confronts consciousness as an opaque, sensory one, with all the unyielding resistance of something actual. The hope of becoming one with it must remain hope—that is, without fulfillment and presence. For between hope and fulfillment stands precisely the absolute contingency or immovable indifference inherent in the taking of shape that grounds this hope. Because of the nature of the existing one, because of the actuality it has 1807 146 taken on, it necessarily has disappeared in time and has been distant in space, and remains absolutely distant.
213 At first, the mere concept of divided consciousness was determined as seeking to sublate itself as an individual and become unchanging consciousness. Its striving is now determined differently. It must instead sublate its relationship to the pure, unshaped unchanging and relate itself only to the unchanging that has taken shape. For the oneness of the individual with the unchanging is now its essence and object, just as, in the concept, the essential object was only the shapeless, abstract unchanging. The relationship of absolute division belonging to that concept is now what it must turn away from. But it must raise its initially external relationship to the unchanging that has taken shape, as an alien actuality, into absolute oneness.
214 The movement in which inessential consciousness strives to reach this oneness is itself threefold. It follows the threefold relationship it will have to its beyond that has taken shape: first as pure consciousness; second as an individual being relating to actuality through desire and work; and third as consciousness of its being-for-itself. We must now see how these three ways of being are present and determined within that general 1807 147 relationship.
215 First, consider it as pure consciousness. Since the unchanging that has taken shape exists for pure consciousness, it seems to be posited as it is in and for itself. But as already noted, what it is in and for itself has not yet emerged. Its being in consciousness as it is in and for itself would have to come from it rather than from consciousness. Here, however, its presence exists only one-sidedly through consciousness. For that very reason it is not complete and true, but remains burdened with incompleteness or an opposition.
216 Although unhappy consciousness does not possess this presence, it has also gone beyond pure thinking in the forms of stoicism's abstract thinking, which looks away from individuality altogether, and skepticism's merely restless thinking—which is really only individuality as an unconscious contradiction and its ceaseless movement. It has gone beyond both. It brings pure thinking and individuality together and keeps them together. But it has not yet risen to the thinking for which the individuality of consciousness is reconciled with pure thinking itself. Instead, it stands at the midpoint where abstract thinking touches the individuality of consciousness 1807 148 as individuality. It itself is this contact. It is the unity of pure thinking and individuality. For it, too, it is this thinking individuality, or pure thinking, and the unchanging itself is essentially individuality. But it does not see for itself that this object of its own—the unchanging, which for it essentially has the shape of individuality—is itself: itself as the individuality of consciousness.
217 In this first way, then, in which we consider it as pure consciousness, it does not relate to its object through thinking. Admittedly, it is in itself pure thinking individuality, and its object is the same. But their relationship to each other is not itself pure thinking. So it only approaches thinking, so to speak, and is devotion. Its thinking as such remains the shapeless sound of ringing bells, or a warm, misty fullness: a musical thinking that does not reach the concept, which would be the only immanent way of being objective. Its object does come to this infinite, pure, inward feeling. But it enters as something not grasped conceptually and therefore alien. What is present, then, is the inward movement of the pure heart, which feels itself, but painfully, as division. It is the movement of infinite longing, certain that its essence is such a pure heart, pure thinking 1807 149 that thinks itself as an individual. It is certain that this object knows and recognizes it, precisely because the object thinks itself as an individual. At the same time, however, this essence is the unreachable beyond, which escapes as it is grasped, or rather has already escaped. It has already escaped because, on one side, it is the unchanging that thinks itself as an individual. Consciousness therefore immediately reaches itself in it: itself, but as what is opposed to the unchanging. Instead of grasping the essence, it only feels and has fallen back into itself. As it reaches, it cannot prevent itself from being this opposite. So instead of grasping the essence, it has grasped only inessentiality. Thus, on one side, while striving to reach itself in the essence, it grasps only its own separate actuality. On the other side, it cannot grasp the other as an individual, or as something actual. Wherever it is sought, it cannot be found. For it is meant to be precisely a beyond, something that cannot be found. Sought as an individual, it is not a universal individuality in thought, not a concept, but an individual as object, or something actual: an object of immediate sense-certainty, and for that very reason only something that has vanished. Thus only the grave of its life can become present to consciousness. But the grave is itself an actuality, and it is contrary 1807 150 to actuality's nature to grant lasting possession. So even this presence of the grave is only the struggle of an effort that must be lost. Yet consciousness has now experienced that the grave of its actual, unchanging essence has no actuality, and that vanished individuality, as vanished, is not true individuality. It will therefore give up searching for unchanging individuality as actual, or holding onto it as vanished. Only through this does it become capable of finding individuality as true, or as universal.
218 At first, however, the heart's return into itself must be taken to mean that it has actuality for itself as an individual. It is the pure heart that for us, or in itself, has found itself and is satisfied within itself. Although for it the essence separates itself from it in its feeling, this feeling is in itself self-feeling. It has felt the object of its pure feeling, and this object is itself. It thus emerges as self-feeling, or as something actual that exists for itself. In this return into itself, its second relationship has come about for us: desire and work. By sublating and enjoying the alien essence—namely, that essence in the form of independent things—these confirm for consciousness the inner certainty of itself that it has attained for us. But unhappy consciousness only finds itself as 1807 151 *desiring and working. It does not see that this finding itself rests on its inner certainty of itself, or that its feeling of the essence is this self-feeling. Since it does not possess that certainty for itself, its inner life instead remains a fractured certainty of itself. The confirmation it would gain through work and enjoyment is therefore equally fractured. Or rather, it must itself destroy this confirmation for itself. It does find confirmation there, but only of what it is for itself: its division.
219 For this consciousness, the actuality toward which desire and work turn is no longer something inherently nothing, which it need only sublate and consume. Instead, like consciousness itself, it is an actuality broken in two. Only on one side is it inherently nothing; on the other it is also a sanctified world. It is a shape of the unchanging, for the unchanging has acquired individuality within itself. And because as the unchanging it is universal, its individuality has the meaning of all actuality in general.
220 If consciousness were independent consciousness for itself, and actuality were nothing in and for itself, consciousness would reach the feeling of its independence through work and enjoyment. For it would itself be what 1807 152 sublated actuality. But since actuality is for it a shape of the unchanging, it cannot sublate actuality by itself. Rather, although it does destroy and enjoy actuality, for it this happens essentially because the unchanging itself surrenders its shape and hands it over for enjoyment. Consciousness, on its side, likewise appears here as actual, but also as inwardly broken. In its work and enjoyment, this division shows itself as a split into a relationship to actuality, or being-for-itself, and a being-in-itself. The relationship to actuality is changing or doing, the being-for-itself that belongs to individual consciousness as such. But within this it also is in itself. This side belongs to the unchanging beyond. It consists of capacities and powers, an alien gift that the unchanging likewise hands over to consciousness to use.
221 In its activity, then, consciousness is initially in a relationship between two extremes. On one side it stands as the active here-and-now, facing passive actuality. Both relate to each other, but both have also withdrawn into the unchanging and hold fast within themselves. From either side, therefore, only a surface breaks loose toward the other and enters into the play of movement against it. The extreme of actuality is sublated by the active extreme. Yet on its 1807 153 side, actuality can be sublated only because its unchanging essence itself sublates it, repels it from itself, and surrenders what has been repelled to activity. Active force appears as the power in which actuality dissolves. But for this consciousness, to which the in-itself, or essence, is something other than itself, this power—which it manifests in its activity—is beyond itself. Instead of returning into itself from its activity and having confirmed itself for itself, it reflects this movement of activity back into the other extreme. That extreme is thereby presented as purely universal, as the absolute power from which the movement has proceeded in every direction. It is the essence both of the dissolving extremes as they first appeared, and of the exchange itself.
222 Unchanging consciousness renounces its shape and surrenders it. Individual consciousness, in turn, gives thanks: it denies itself the satisfaction of being conscious of its independence and assigns the essence of its activity to the beyond rather than to itself. Through these two moments of both sides mutually giving themselves up, consciousness does acquire its unity with the unchanging. Yet this unity is also affected by separation and broken again within itself. The opposition of universal and individual reappears from it. For 1807 154 consciousness renounces the satisfaction of its self-feeling only in appearance. It gains actual satisfaction of that feeling, since it has desired, worked, and enjoyed. As consciousness, it has willed, acted, and enjoyed. Its thanks, too, in which it recognizes the other extreme as the essence and sublates itself, is its own activity. This balances the activity of the other extreme and sets an equal activity against the benefit that surrenders itself. If the other yields its surface to consciousness, consciousness also gives thanks. In doing so, it gives up its activity itself—that is, its essence—and actually does more than the other, which merely casts off a surface. The whole movement thus reflects itself into the extreme of individuality, not only in actual desire, work, and enjoyment, but even in giving thanks, where the opposite seems to happen. Consciousness feels itself there as this individual. It is not deceived by the appearance of its renunciation, for the truth is that it has not given itself up. What has come about is only the doubled reflection into the two extremes. The result is a renewed split into the opposed consciousness of the unchanging and the consciousness of the opposing willing, accomplishing, enjoying, and self-renunciation itself—in short, of individuality that is for itself.
1807 155
223 This brings us to the third relationship in this consciousness's movement. It emerges from the second as a consciousness that has truly proved itself independent through its willing and accomplishing. In the first relationship it was only the concept of actual consciousness, or the inward heart, not yet actual in activity and enjoyment. The second is this actualization as outward activity and enjoyment. Having returned from this, it has experienced itself as actual and active consciousness. It is true for it that it exists in and for itself. But now the enemy has been discovered in its most characteristic shape. In the heart's struggle, individual consciousness is only a musical, abstract moment. In work and enjoyment, as the realization of this being without essence, it can immediately forget itself. Consciousness of its own distinctness within this actuality is beaten down by thankful recognition. But this beating down is truly a return of consciousness into itself, specifically into itself as what it regards as true actuality.
224 This third relationship, in which this true actuality is one extreme, is the relationship of that actuality, as something null, to the universal essence. We must still examine the movement of this relationship.
1807 156
225 First consider consciousness's oppositional relationship, in which its reality is immediately nothing for it. Its actual activity thus becomes an activity of nothing, and its enjoyment becomes the feeling of its unhappiness. Activity and enjoyment thereby lose all universal content and meaning, since these would give them being in and for themselves. Both withdraw into individuality, which consciousness aims to sublate. Consciousness is aware of itself as this actual individual in its animal functions. These functions should be performed without self-conscious concern, as something inherently nothing that can acquire no importance or essential significance for spirit. Instead, because the enemy shows itself in its characteristic shape in them, they become the object of serious effort, and indeed the most important thing. But this enemy produces itself in its defeat. By fixing on it, consciousness always dwells on it instead of freeing itself, and always sees itself as defiled. Moreover, the content of its striving is the lowest rather than something essential, the most particular rather than something universal. So we see only a personality confined to itself and its little activity, brooding over itself, as unhappy as it is impoverished.
226 But both the feeling of its unhappiness and the poverty of its activity are also connected 1807 157 with consciousness of its unity with the unchanging. For its attempted immediate destruction of its actual being is mediated by the thought of the unchanging and occurs in this relationship. The mediated relationship forms the essence of the negative movement in which it turns against its individuality. Yet as a relationship in itself, this is also positive and will produce this unity for consciousness itself.
227 This mediated relationship is thus a syllogism. Individuality, which initially fixes itself as opposed to the in-itself, is joined to this other extreme only through a third term. Through this middle term, the extreme of unchanging consciousness exists for inessential consciousness. This also involves inessential consciousness existing for unchanging consciousness only through this middle term. The middle thus presents the two extremes to each other and serves each in dealing with the other. This middle term is itself a conscious being, since it is an activity that mediates consciousness as such. The content of this activity is the destruction consciousness carries out upon its individuality.
228 In this, then, consciousness frees itself from activity and enjoyment as its own. As the extreme that is for itself, it casts off the essence of its will. It puts onto the middle term, or servant, the 1807 158 ownership and freedom of decision, and with them the guilt for its activity. This mediator, directly related to the unchanging essence, serves it with advice about what is right. Since the action follows another's decision, it ceases to be its own on the side of activity or will. But its objective side still belongs to inessential consciousness: the fruit of its work and its enjoyment. So it casts this off as well. Just as it renounces its will, it renounces the actuality acquired in work and enjoyment. It renounces this partly as the attained truth of its self-conscious independence, by occupying itself with imagining and saying something wholly alien and meaningless to it; partly as external property, by giving away some of the possessions earned through work; and partly as the enjoyment it has had, by completely denying itself enjoyment again through fasting and mortification.
229 Through these moments—giving up its own decision, then its property and enjoyment, and finally the positive moment of pursuing a task it does not understand—it truly and completely deprives itself of consciousness of inward and outward freedom, of actuality as its being-for-itself. It is certain that it has truly alienated its I and made its immediate self-consciousness into a 1807 159 *thing, an objective being. Only through this actual sacrifice could it confirm its self-renunciation. For only here does the deception disappear that lies in the inward recognition expressed by giving thanks in heart, attitude, and speech. Such recognition does shift all the power of being-for-itself away from itself and attribute it to a gift from above. Yet in this very shifting it retains its outward distinctness in the possessions it does not give up, and its inward distinctness in consciousness of the decision it has itself made. It also retains consciousness of the content it has itself determined, which it has not exchanged for an alien content that fills it without meaning.
230 But in the sacrifice actually carried out, its unhappiness has also left it in itself, just as consciousness has sublated activity as its own. That this release has happened in itself, however, is an activity of the syllogism's other extreme, which is the essence that is in itself. Yet the sacrifice of the inessential extreme was not one-sided activity either. It contained the activity of the other. For giving up one's own will is negative only on one side. In its concept, or in itself, it is also positive: it posits will as the will of another, and specifically as a will that is not individual but universal. For this 1807 160 consciousness, this positive meaning of the negated individual will is the will of the other extreme. Precisely because that extreme is other for it, this will comes to it not through itself but through the third term, the mediator, as advice. Thus for it, its will does become universal will, will that is in itself. But it itself does not regard itself as this in-itself. Giving up its will as individual is not, for it, conceptually the positive character of universal will. Likewise, giving up possession and enjoyment has only the same negative meaning. The universal that thereby comes to be for it is not its own activity for it. This unity of objective being and being-for-itself lies in the concept of activity, and therefore becomes essence and object for consciousness. Yet just as consciousness does not grasp it as the concept of its activity, neither does it see that this unity becomes an object for it immediately and through itself. Instead, it has the mediating servant pronounce this still fractured certainty: only in itself is its unhappiness the reverse of what it seems—activity that satisfies itself in its own activity, or blessed enjoyment. Likewise, its impoverished activity is in itself its reverse, namely absolute activity. According to the concept, activity is activity at all only as an individual's activity. But for consciousness itself, activity, including its actual activity, remains impoverished, and its enjoyment remains pain. Their sublated condition 1807 161, in its positive meaning, remains a beyond. Yet in this object, in which its activity and being as this individual consciousness are being and activity in themselves, the representation of reason has arisen for it: consciousness's certainty that in its individuality it is absolutely in itself, or is all reality.
About this section
IV. Self-consciousness is part of The Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is chapter 6 of 10 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.