Please complete the following assignment by class on Wednesday (11/3). As with previous posts, one group member responds, others must comment in the thread.
The question:
What does Hegel have to say about the individual's relationship either (a) to other individuals, or (b) to institutions? (Pick one (a) or (b))
Please respond (250 ish words) as if your reader knew nothing of Hegel, had never read his writing, and needed the answer explained in an "un-Hegel-ish" terms as possible.
Hegel's ideas about relationships between individuals is basically that you as the individual know absolutely nothing about yourself, therefore to recognize yourself you have to enter into a mutual relationship with someone who is completely different from yourself. The key is that you have to go completely outside of yourself to be able to see yourself. The idea is that when you meet someone who is completely different from yourself in a mutual relationship, you each absorb something from each other. For this to work the individuals in the relationship have to be able to give up some of themselves in order to be able to find out who they are. In this way you are finding yourself by combining who you are with the character of the other person. When a person goes into a relationship that person has his/her character or personality, when a person leaves a relationship even if the relationship was a failure, they both have learned something about each other and themselves. Humans learn by interaction so it does make sense that when a person enters into a relationship that person might come out of that relationship as a changed person, or experience no change at all. Nevertheless, the idea is that in a relationship you have to give up a bit of yourself to learn who you really are. Hegel believed that the strongest relationship is the one where the individuals are risking everything on that particular relationship. The idea is that when you go so far outside of yourself that you are risking your life for the things that are completely essential to you, you will find the Truth about yourself. Essentially the way to completely find the Truth about yourself, according to Hegel is for you to be able to risk everything on a relationship.
ReplyDeleteI really like this, Sarah. One question I thought of while reading it is that you mention the phrase "even if the relationship was a failure..."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Hegel would classify as a failed relationship? If any relationship ends with some form of mutual gain in terms of knowledge of self and another, can any relationship therefore be classified as a failure?
Really nice work here. You made Hegel much more understandable, thanks!
Sarah, this is a great post! You really made Hegel easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteNatalie, I am fascinated by your question. Is there such a thing as a failed relationship? My automatic response is that of course there is, but this really brings me back to one of Hegel's other big points: that everything happens for a reason, is part of a bigger scheme. Even the relationships that feel horrible probably allows us to learn something about ourselves; it really does happen for that reason. It's hard for us, living here subjectively on Earth, to understand that maybe it did happen for a reason, but maybe Hegel would say that God can see the bigger picture and understand why that relationship was good.
Sarah, my question for you is a little different. You say, "it does make sense that when a person enters into a relationship that person might come out of that relationship as a changed person, or experience no change at all." Is it really possible to experience no change at all, though? I think this came up in class the other day when Miles was arguing that if he really felt strongly about something, someone with opposite views probably wouldn't change his mind. I think, though, that when you argue with someone with opposite views, even if you don't take on their views in the end, arguing with them gives you insight into your own beliefs. Do you think that it is ever possible to have a relationship that doesn't change you in some way? Is this possibly the master's relationship with the slave that Hegel talks about? Or does the master really gain something, is he really changed, if only a little, by the slave's confirmation of his beliefs?
Also, I just thought, (and this connects the two things I just wrote about!) is the relationship of the master and the slave a failed relationship? The master isn't getting much from his slave. How can it be failed, though, if God sees everything as happening for a reason?
ReplyDeleteGreat job Sarah, now why couldn't Hegel have written it this way?
ReplyDeleteKathryn, Sarah, and Natalie:
I'm not sure if there can be a "failed relationship" in Hegelian thinking. Because the very basis for relationships is to ultimately actualize ones self. So every relationship that one enters there is some sense of gaining something.
Perhaps a "failed relationship" would be not changing after having some relationship with another person. But then the question arises, once again thinking in Hegelian terms and ideas, why would you have entered into that relationship at all if it did not help to actualize you in some way?
When Miles was arguing that it wouldn't change him at all, I don't think that is possible. Even when arguing with another person who has different views, especially with somebody with different views, there is always some change. I think that in the very least one has new information, counterpoints to make their original argument stronger.
I loved Julia's point, which seemed to tie everything together: that perhaps a "failed" relationship is one which does not affect either person (but would that even be a relationship in Hegelian terms?).
ReplyDeleteSarah described Hegel's idea of a relationship as one in which "you have to give up a bit of yourself to learn who you really are." To do this, wouldn't a relationship have to change the other person? Sarah also mentioned Hegel's idea of finding the Truth about yourself--that to do so, you have to "risk your life for the things that are completely essential to you." Wouldn't an example of doing so be entering into a relationship with someone who was very different from you, perhaps even your opposite (if such a thing exists)?
Just some questions to think about that I don't really have answers to. This was all very thoughtful, you guys kinda already said everything that I would have if I had commented earlier : )
Em