Obviously, since for Hegel self-actualization through the development of our bodies and minds, especially through "self-consciousness's apprehension of itself as free," is the means by which we take possession of ourselves and come to possess our own identities, slavery would be radically unacceptable. He makes abundantly clear that the arguments in favor of slavery (and remember, he is writing in the early 19th century, when such arguments were matters of current debate in many parts of the world) are objectifying and inauthentic (not to say bogus).
He surprises our tidy liberal sensibilities, however, by also observing that the absolute rejection of slavery is equally one-sided, since it adheres to "the concept of man [sic] as mind, as something inherently free. The view is one-sided in regarding man [sic] as free by nature."
I take his point here to be that to think we have enabled humans to be free simply by abolishing slavery radically underestimates what is involved in enabling freedom, in becoming free. We aren't free simply because we are not enslaved; we are free only when we actualize our potential, and the process by which we become able to do this is a social learning curve that may well involve phases of subordination (here see the Master-slave dialectic in the Phenomenology of Mind). For example, I was a student of philosophy for a long time before I ever professed to teach it (and serious humility is still warranted).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree that we are not "free" simply because we aren't enslaved, and that we must first undergo some kind of subservience to others in order to truly actualize ourselves and be free. We are naturally social creatures, and we grow and learn through myriad mentors to whom we are subordinate, be they parents, teachers, or employers. By being subordinate to others, we learn truths about the world and about ourselves that we may not have discovered had we tried to "go it alone."
However, I do not see this type of subordination as "slavery" in the sense that slavery assumes forced control over a person against their will. I don't consider myself enslaved by my parents, my teachers, or my bosses because I'm not being subordinate to them against my will. I do not think that rejection of slavery is one-sided because I do not believe that people should be allowed to "own" other people, with no consent of the owned person, and to force said person to do things against their will. This is a completely different form of slavery, and what I personally view as the definition of slavery, than merely engaging in a relationship where one "lends oneself to others" in order to ultimately gain something along the way; i.e. self-actualization and fulfillment of potential.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think the majority of African slaves found self-actualization under the whips of slave drivers in Southern cotton fields.
You are quite right that chattel slavery is only loosely analogous to my example.
Perhaps this example that unfolded in the decades after Hegel will make the point clearer: as indispensable as they were to the eventual end of slavery in the U.S., many radical abolitionists were single-issue fanatics who intended to end slavery by any means at all -- they had absolutely no boundaries, patience, or negotiating room. Thus the murderous patriarch John Brown tried to launch a holy race war that he hoped would either abolish slavery or destroy the country in trying (deliberately precipitating the civil war, which nearly did destroy the country in fact). He did this in the name of an ethos of honor, revenge, and blood that Robert E. Lee and the Southern generals understood perfectly -- and that Lincoln tried to supplant with the concepts of equality and the rule of law.
Out of the dialectical cauldron of that horrific conflict, slavery was indeed formally abolished, but Lincoln understood that this would be far from sufficient in itself (especially had it happened on Brown's terms) to confer full agency and personhood on the slaves [this is one reason perhaps for his misguided efforts at repatriation of the slaves to Africa in the Liberian experiment.]
Hegel's point, I take it, is that genuine freedom cannot be conferred on anyone from without, so being single-mindedly and fanatically against slavery is one-sided and insufficient.
i am not convinced there is any free will under any circumstance as long as preference is held in regard (i maintain, nature itself is an inevitable dictator). however i have noticed an irony in our society that we are considered "fake" if we adapt to specific roles our relationships ask of us, and inconsiderate if we do not. is there a demeanor or temperament that is universal with only the slightest variation? it has been my objective to find this mode with much, but not complete success. i think it is beneficial to play certain roles such as: son, a father, an employee, friend and even stranger (at risk of impeding ones personal boundaries if you act like a friend to a stranger, it's sad but true). i also think it is more important to do so without giving up our personal identity (the cure to an existentialist living in society). i have extremely little in common with my family, i resort to talking about beer and past events to play the role to keep things positive without being dishonest about my opinions rather than getting frustrated that i always have to meet them on their grounds of interest.
i get my concept of freedom from tantra. the only way i could know i am not an alcoholic is to have the freedom to go to a bar and enjoy myself without drinking. to an extent yoga and mantras can be a form of escapism, they may teach us to identify our problems and bring them to the surface, only to figure out a way around them (in my example, being "happy" (in a limited capacity of happiness) without drinking, but avoiding places where drinking takes place). however, tantra tells you to be present in our anxiety, distress, addiction etc and that we must have the freedom to avoid nothing in order to expand our capacity for happiness.
this has led me to the question of can we be slaves to freedom? and i have to this point concluded yes, i have the capacity and freedom to give myself up and consciously leave myself vulnerable for negative energy to transcend higher positive energy. my sufi training has taught me "he who guards himself against being fooled is clever, he who does not allow himself to be fooled is wise, he who gets fooled is a simpleton, he who knowingly allows himself to be fooled shows the character of a saint" pir-o-murshid. this is where i got the idea of giving freely to see how people responded (which matt related to "tic-tac" in game theory) i have lost thousands of dollars with this attitude, but have gained millions in insight.
The conception of a "free will" connotes qualities such as "absolute" and "infinite." These connotations are at odds with reality viz. "finitude." The opposing natures of these conceptions are conflicting -- specifically in regards to identity. In order to resolve this "conflict," people might choose to (1) side with one or the other; or (2) synthesize them. The former would yield an "unfulfilled identity" whereas the latter would yield an "ideal identity."
Achieving an "ideal identity" is far too utopian but, then again, I have experienced states of "bliss" and "euphoria" -- I almost felt "complete" during these experiences. You could say I "resolved my conflict."
Nevertheless, "all good things come to an end." An "ideal identity" might be possible yet temporary; and this doesn't mean it can only happen once. The dialectic process is perpetual because of the perpetual conflict between our "free will" and "raw being." As a result, ideal states of identity can be re-achieved via labor, taking risks, or being open-minded (i.e. living authentically).
The "perpetual conflict" underlying "identity" symbolizes the inner struggle to achieve an authentic life; and achieving an authentic life is realistic. Authenticity can not be achieved by unifying the infinite free will with raw being because this implies that existence is defined by a dualism.
Furthermore, Martin Heidegger claims we have presuppositions about the world and other lofty concepts e.g. life, existence, reality, nature etc... Projecting our presuppostions of such concepts into our actions can lead us astray viz. towards dualistic thinking; but they can help familiarize ourselves with the world. Either way, it seems crucial to know whether our actions are (1) influenced by our presuppositions or (2) balanced with the awareness of our presuppositions. The latter seems to be the first step towards living an authentic life.
I won't debate the ontology of free will in this forum -- nor am I interested in doing so in class. Facinating though the question is, our working assumption for present purposes must be compatibilist (at least) -- that is, talk of freedom is coherent with our understanding of the world.
The reason we must make such an operational assumption is that no moral question would have any practical meaning if we could not do otherwise than we do: ought implies can, and responsibility entails the ability to respond.
Those interested in pursuing the minutia of the reasoning for and against this assumption are welcomed to take a course in metaphysics and epistemology and have at it.
Post a Comment