In part b of Chapter Six of the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel introduces ethical consciousness describing it at as self consciousness with "pure orientation to the ethical essentiality, or duty" ( p. 20). What does this mean (or how do I understand this question)? In oder to analyze it we must first understand human law and divine law.
In the previous section Hegel introduced two forms of law; human and divine. He attributes the human law to a male figure because (according to the era he is referring to in his writing), the male is who stepped outside of the family, held the power to make important decisions and thus was free both in the household and in the public sphere. On the contrary, the divine law is personified through women because, women are what hold the household together keeping the family in place. Therefore, the divine law (through dogmatic beliefs) will hold society together. That is as long as human law (free will) does not oppose it (p. 168-169).
At a universal level Human law and the Divine law will structure society and each individual in it. But on the individual level (self), human law and the divine law will oppose each other in order to reach singularity. Each self will make judgments (or serve their duty) according to the law they're adherent to. As a consequence they will oppose those who are not of their same identity and hold different judgements. As Hegel puts it, they will find the other guilty.
To make it even more interesting, Hegel adds the antithesis of the known and the unknown (which arises in consciousness) and the antithesis of consciousness and unconsciousness which arises in substance (p. 21). These antithesis are important because they will clearly define "ethical action" (if it cannot be yet in the paragraph above). A judgement or action that is made will be wrong even if it was performed unconsciously (unaware of either the divine or human law) and the object is unknown. (This is where the authors of this translation infer that Hegel is writing this with Oedipus on mind.)
For Hegel "what is ethical must be actual, for the actuality of the purpose is the purpose of the activity" (p 24). Therefore, ethical consciousness has to recognize its opposite as valid in its own in order for its own purpose to be valid. This allows the theoretical part to transform into practical, because this recognition occurs in the community. Each individual in the community has equal "right" and thus law will be the institution chosen by people that will grant it to each. ( This develops in part c "The condition of right")
Ethical consciousness is thus as Paul Trejo places it (in his website "Summary of Hegel's Philosophy of Mind") what leads us to a legal consciousness. Ethical consciousness is the process by which the individual recognizes itself and its own choices first and then recognizes the choices of others and accepts them (even if it does not concur with them) within the community. Giving opportunity for a system of unify law to emerge.
A couple of notes:
ReplyDeleteI love your points about human and divine law, and how they come together to to shape a society. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "on the individual level (self), human law and the divine law will oppose each other in order to reach singularity." It seems to me that in those cases, then an individual will not be able to act correctly without the external pressure / influence of society, no?
I also take issue with Hegel's notions on unconscious action being (potentially) wrong. Wouldn't some argue that a person cannot be held accountable for actions of which they are not aware? If I accidentally step on a bug on the way to school, that is not as bad and perhaps not even wrong when compared to someone going out of their way to do harm, no?
Despite the opposition of human and divine law, essentially they are in sync with one another because their relationship is very much cyclical and dependant. From my understanding, singularity implies the “ethical life” and a collective individual that emerges through its fulfillment. In response to the first part of Oscar’s comment, I concur to an extent that one is not able to act correctly due to the “external pressure/ influence of society”. These external pressures or influences of society of which Oscar speaks, though, seem to be a more modern way of looking at it; it is precisely the structure of a society or particular custom that constitutes human and divine law, as well as, actions. It is not necessarily seen as something that prohibits action, rather what gives way to duty—always correct in action. Oscar’s point is made valid, in the sense that those of either human or divine law are at fault in their actions due to external factors (i.e. the realm that exists with and outside of them). Hence, the failure of both realms is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second part of Oscar’s comment, I say that in light of the “ethical powers”(p.21) of the human and divine law, the unawareness of those subject to them is wrong, in terms of the interference and confliction between both powers. I do not think that Hegel is in any way blaming those of the human or divine law, or holding them accountable, but simply suggesting that their “essentiality” (enforced by human and divine law) causes an idea of wrong doing. The unconscious action is in turn a result that wreaks havoc.
I also find it interesting overall that Hegel uses this account of history, attributed to the Greeks, to parallel the movement of spirit in consciousness. At least, that is how I view it, though I could be misinterpreting this aspect of his intent or process.
@Oscar what I meant to say with that weird sentence is that on an individual level one belongs to either the divine or the human not both. for example, a men belongs to the family when he is a child, he is shaped by the divine law to be a good member of society which is governed by human law, thus when he enters society he steps out of the "divine law". As a member of community though, you have to understand the difference of both laws and therefore respect both, understanding that they're both equally important. These laws shape your duty and thus the form in which you behave in both realms.
ReplyDeleteFor your second question it might be that I am interpreting Hegel wrong I don't know. I asked myself the same question you asked but then I also remembered that by nature an individual belongs to either the human or the divine. So maybe the unconsciousness is not fulfilling in either one of the laws. In the case of Oedipus, it demonstrates that a society cannot function if both the household and state are not respected. He did not choose the circumstance he faced (killing his father, and murdering his mother), but he has to accept his fate . His duty as king is to keep the honor of his city, but can he do this when he himself, dishonored it and failed? There has to be something else that can clear this contradiction, and that is what according to Hegel jurisprudence is. I think your argument is valid in a moral sense but not in relation to what Hegel is trying to say.
Cristina,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you’ve concisely described the passing of ethical consciousness as well as its emergence. Hegel describes this moment by stating, “the ethical shape of spirit has disappeared, and another one takes its place (page 30).” This transition results from the antithesis of consciousness you mentioned whereby the “ethical self-consciousness” is not yet aware of itself as an essence – that is, the subject is unaware of itself as the object. This transition is important to note, but I’m unclear if the passing of ethical consciousness marks the beginning of self-consciousness in this section. Would you say there's another shape of spirit preceding self-consciousness? Is this what you mean by the legal consciousness? I know the next assigned section begins by stating that the “self-conscious has become master over the antithesis of consciousness itself (page 112).” Although this synthesis of the self-consciousness is expected, the formation is a bit unclear...
Human and divine law are complementary to each other and are necessary to each other. One does not exist without the other - they are the thesis and antithesis. However, I do not agree that there is an external/societal influence plays a major role, and definitely not in the divine law. For human law, there is a law giver who establishes the law to follow, but even then the society is not involved. Law serves as a guideline. As for the divine law, there is a higher power than mere humans at work. Furthermore, if there is societal influence, wouldn't it be impossible for human and divine law to be in conflict ever? (Which we see not to be the case.) It's not as though there is a human and a divine society separately.
ReplyDelete@ Sivia I did not mean "legal consciousness as a shape" but just an awareness that law is what is left in that instance.
ReplyDelete@ Maria, I completely acknowledge that I made a mistake interpreting this section, first because I did not see that the conflict between the divine and the human law can occur with in an individual and I interpreted as a conflict between individuals in each realm.