Topics

What is “immediate being” really? Help


Joe
 

I am a novice FYI. Reading Marcuse’s book “Hegel’s Ontology...” And it
occurs to me: is there any really clear concept of immediate being? Just
the mere thought of immediate being establishes some mediation, no? Or
what?? Appreciate any thoughts you all might have on this.

Thanks & Best Regards,
—Joe


R Srivatsan
 

Hello Joe,

My two bits: Immediate being refers to something which has not been
mediated, reflected upon, properly articulated, conceptualized. Though
there is mediation already in the operation of thinking about immediate
being (it is always relative) it is a mediation that is not aware of itself
as mediation: perhaps unthought mediation, or mediation-in-itself? In
other words, the thought that is thinking about being is not explicitly
thinking about itself and how it thinks about being. And here thought is
both individual and the behind the scenes outcome of Spirit.

Srivats

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:03 PM ecodeathmarch <@publicear11> wrote:

I am a novice FYI. Reading Marcuse’s book “Hegel’s Ontology...” And it
occurs to me: is there any really clear concept of immediate being? Just
the mere thought of immediate being establishes some mediation, no? Or
what?? Appreciate any thoughts you all might have on this.

Thanks & Best Regards,
—Joe



--
R Srivatsan
<http://www.anveshi.org.in/the-people-of-anveshi/fellows-2/dr-r-srivatsan/>
Flat 101, Block C, Saincher Palace Apartments
10-3-152, Street No 2
East Marredpally
Secunderabad
Telangana 500026
Mobile: +91 77027 11656, +91 94404 80762
Landline: +91 40 2773 5193

*Human action is characteristically neither blind and goalless nor the mere
implementation of means to an already decided end. Acting that is the
bringing about of such an end by a calculated means certainly has a place,
but a subordinate place, in human activity. That it is only in the course
of the movement that the goals of the movement are articulated is the
reason why we can understand human affairs only after the event. The owl
of Minerva, as Hegel was later to put it, flies only at dusk. *
Alasdair Macintyre, "Hegel on Faces and Skulls", in ed., *Hegel: A
Collection of Critical Essays, * (Garden City NY: Anchor, 1972)


Bill Hord
 

Joe, I think we can approach this more clearly through introducing a
distinction, namely immediate being as it is and immediate being as it is
known. This distinction in turn depends on the two moments that go into
knowing, the object and a form of consciousness that attempts to grasp the
object (knowing). Immediate being as it is is not being in-itself; it is
rather being according to consciousness (and may be being conceived as
unmediated [or immediate]). In such a case consciousness is not unaware of
other aspects of being (or of a determinate being) but which are not taken
as essential to the immediate being as grasped. (Consciousness often
doesn't make this last distinction in its taking immediate being as simply
being-in-itself. In all cases, however, it appears that consciousness has
awareness of other aspects of being that are not counted as aspects of the
immediate being in itself.)

Note, this response makes use of, and really parrots an insight of Kenneth
Westphal's in his 1989 Hegel's Epistemological Realism. See esp. Ch. 7,
"Self-Criticism and Criteria of Truth." I hope I am interpreting and
applying Westphal's distinctions fairly. In any case my thought developed
from a reading of Westphal.

A simpler way to answer your question is to simply point out that Hegel
resists "naive realism" (we know things just as they are immediately) but
endorses a kind of "direct realism" (things appear to us as they are
[though not always in their entirety, immediately recognized by us]). How
can these be reconciled? The difference turns, I think, on Hegel's
distinction between "being for another" and "being to us" (Westphal, p.
105-106). Being-for-another is an ontological category that is also
essential to our knowing -- it refers to our understanding of what the
object is, but in the sense that the object presents itself (to us,
referring already to a limitation on our side). (There is implicit in this
a distinction between what the object is according to us and how the
properties we recognize in it are taken as instantiating our conception.)
But we also, implicitly, recognize properties that the object has but that
we exclude from our conception, and which we recognize, in one vocabulary,
as "accidental".

The object in itself presents an immediate appearance that consists of
essence (for us) along with properties that are viewed as non-essential.
(One skeptical approach is to base skeptical doubts on experience of these
non-essential properties.)

Hegel's presentation of magnetic poles can illustrate the distinction I am
trying to establish. Some might perceive the positive pole of a magnet as
essence -- whether as the essence of magnetism or as the essential
element of a magnet -- and thereby reduce the negative pole to some sort of
accidental property, or take it as a separate essence. Hegel wanted us to
recognize that the two poles are the moments of one essence.

In other words, yes, "just the mere thought of immediate being establishes
some mediation." More, being is mediated. "Immediate being" deserves scare
quotes; yet it isn't, I think, all on us. Being appears [directly] in a way
that usually hides part of the truth of being. Yet, this way of appearing
is part of the truth of being.

Good luck with your reading,
Bill

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:33 AM ecodeathmarch <@publicear11> wrote:

I am a novice FYI. Reading Marcuse’s book “Hegel’s Ontology...” And it
occurs to me: is there any really clear concept of immediate being? Just
the mere thought of immediate being establishes some mediation, no? Or
what?? Appreciate any thoughts you all might have on this.

Thanks & Best Regards,
—Joe




Beat Greuter
 

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 05:33 AM, ecodeathmarch wrote:


I am a novice FYI. Reading Marcuse’s book “Hegel’s Ontology...” And it
occurs to me: is there any really clear concept of immediate being? Just
the mere thought of immediate being establishes some mediation, no? Or
what?? Appreciate any thoughts you all might have on this.

Thanks & Best Regards,
—Joe
Joe,

Let's make examples. You see the moon immediately as round, or half round and yellow. Is this the essence of the moon? I don't think so. The essence of a moon is his relation to the earth and the sun, that is, his position within a system. Or, you see immediately that grandfather has white hairs and a beard contrary to children. Is this the essence of a grandfather or is it rather his relation to the father and the children of the father within a genealogical system?

Hegel deals with the logic of the immediacy in the Logic of Being. Since immediacy means that the Concept is merely in-itself there is only a transition from one viewpoint of being to another, a mediation as you say, but an external one. With the logic of the relation Hegel deals in the Logic of the Essence where the Concept is for-itself (merely internal) and the principle of the movement is no longer transition but internal mediation and reflection. The true Concept is in-and-for-itself and this means subjectivity or self-consciousness - the unity of immediacy and mediation. With the logic of subjectivity Hegel deals in the Logic of the Concept where the principle of the movement is the development of the concept itself as the actualization of freedom.

Best wishes,
Beat


Joe
 

Thank you everyone! Very much appreciated. —Joe

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:09 AM Beat Greuter <greuterb@...> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 05:33 AM, ecodeathmarch wrote:


I am a novice FYI. Reading Marcuse’s book “Hegel’s Ontology...” And it
occurs to me: is there any really clear concept of immediate being? Just
the mere thought of immediate being establishes some mediation, no? Or
what?? Appreciate any thoughts you all might have on this.

Thanks & Best Regards,
—Joe
Joe,

Let's make examples. You see the moon immediately as round, or half round
and yellow. Is this the essence of the moon? I don't think so. The essence
of a moon is his relation to the earth and the sun, that is, his position
within a system. Or, you see immediately that grandfather has white hairs
and a beard contrary to children. Is this the essence of a grandfather or
is it rather his relation to the father and the children of the father
within a genealogical system?

Hegel deals with the logic of the immediacy in the Logic of Being. Since
immediacy means that the Concept is merely in-itself there is only a
transition from one viewpoint of being to another, a mediation as you say,
but an external one. With the logic of the relation Hegel deals in the
Logic of the Essence where the Concept is for-itself (merely internal) and
the principle of the movement is no longer transition but internal
mediation and reflection. The true Concept is in-and-for-itself and this
means subjectivity or self-consciousness - the unity of immediacy and
mediation. With the logic of subjectivity Hegel deals in the Logic of the
Concept where the principle of the movement is the development of the
concept itself as the actualization of freedom.

Best wishes,
Beat