Why must\u00a0Hegel\u2019s Logic start with freedom? Freedom is not presupposition-less. Freedom means free. Free assumes a move away, a compulsion for dunamis; not dunamis for the sake of dunamis but dunamis as repulsion or attraction. Hegel thinks freedom as immediacy, \u2018isness\u2019. Because of freedom, immediacy wants what \u2018isness\u2019 isn\u2019t – mediation. Two terms have appeared: freedom, \u2018isness\u2019 (immediacy). These two work together to lose themselves, objectify, mediate. \u2018Isness\u2019 is a rootedness, a dwelling, a place. As Kant\u2019s monistic subject, we have place, immediacy. Immediacy may be boundless or bounded but it assumes locality and awareness of locality. It is easy to see how things proceed from this \u2018there\u2019, the \u2018there\u2019 of immediacy. In any case, assumptions are made about \u2018isness\u2019 (i.e., \u2018isness\u2019 must be free of itself). Since we make this assumption at the start, why not another? Instead of freedom, why not evocation? Instead of \u2018isness\u2019, why not other? Why can\u2019t \u2018isness\u2019 presuppose other, the evocative that evokes \u2018isness\u2019? Why can\u2019t evocation call \u2018isness\u2019 to immediacy? Why couldn\u2019t freedom be a misunderstanding of evocation, dunamis from evocation? Certainly immediacy \u2018is\u2019 and as such, a start. However, this start may carry with it its logos. Its arche is certainly self-determination, itself. Could self-determination be an assumption given as a determination of immediacy? Are there other determinations that could be made? Would another direction, a logos, be possible from an other determination? Certainly an other does not appear in immediacy but how could it (and still be other in Levinas\u2019 sense)? What determinations could be sustained if immediacy is \u2018isness\u2019 or \u2018otherness\u2019? Certainly \u2018isness\u2019 comes from nothing other than itself in its \u201cpure immediacy\u201d but \u201cnothing other than itself\u201d is already a tautological identity based on the \u201cnothing other\u201d. \u201cPure immediacy\u201d absolutely negates other. Within this arche the other must fall out as mediated, as ad hoc from immediacy. Immediacy is pure negation. All its conditions reside in itself and thus, fail. Is this what is called \u2018freedom\u2019 or the impetus for freedom? What if all the conditions for immediacy reside in the other and \u2018isness\u2019 is called to be from what it isn\u2019t? Is this a presupposition or another initial determination? Why presuppose a self-determination based on a \u2018sense\u2019 of immediacy? Is this automatically apparent, aprioir, assumed without self-criticism? If the Hegelian start is made by assuming that immediacy is self-determined, feels empty of other, then a decision, a determination, in kairos has been made. It may be that the moment of kairos, thought as immediacy, holds other options that require a very different \u2018working out\u2019, another start.<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
9\/10\/10<\/p>\n
Does the reification of the immediate reflect a certain kind of privileged, existentiell \u2018there\u2019 of being? Isn\u2019t the start of Hegel a certain kind of mode of dasein\u2019s being-in-the-world? Isn\u2019t it when dasein is introspective, aware of nothing other than his or her own stark existence? Immediacy as discussed by Hegel occurs when no one is around, when one is intensely focused on oneself, and dasein is isolated from others. I suppose one could maintain that this stark, isolated, existentiell modality is \u2018always\u2019 there in some sense but that is a bit of a stretch.(1) Could it be that this thought is a \u2018scientific\u2019 assertion (doxa) of how dasein really is? When dasein is with others (mitsein) the \u2018there\u2019 is not dominated by hermetic and hermeneutic isolation (unless one is depressed). In everyday interaction with others, attending plays or sports events and perhaps watching a live entertainment broadcast, dasein is immersed in a kind of shared moment, a communal \u2018now\u2019, with others. Ontically, the \u201cI\u201d does not show itself but the \u201cwe\u201d. The \u201cI\u201d does not dominate existentielly. The experience is not like anxiety where beings withdraw or instrumentality where dasein is engaged in work and not over and above him\/herself. The experience is of a kind of shared \u2018I\u2019, a \u2018we\u2019, with others, the \u2018now\u2019 moment (immediacy) is not mine but ours. It seems to me that the kind of privileged (the beginning of the Logic?) and self-absorbed immediacy of Hegel is reified over and against the other ways that dasein ontically is in-the-world. What is the self-critical justification for this start? Is this a tradition brought about by the hermetic environment of academia? It seems to me that Hegel assumes immediacy is the moment of moments that all other moments get their oxygen from at least in the rarified atmosphere of academia. Has anyone ever even questioned this specifically? Probably but I am not currently aware of it. It seems to me that the start determines the path and the end. Why this start and not another? Is Hegel\u2019s start supposed to be self-evident? (2)<\/p>\n
————————————————————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
Notes:<\/p>\n
(1) A thought…could the immediacy of Hegel have something in common with the concept of dread in Kierkegaard?<\/p>\n
(2) It seems to me, this is yet another example of the sophistry that enters philosophy when philosophers become \u2018professional\u2019 and are paid for their \u2018career\u2019. It conglomerates and congeals, stupefies and specializes into a lifetime of having a financial stake in the game of apologetics. Sadly, I have seen it ruin the love of philosophy in several people. Could it be argued that this is one example of the alienation that Marx thinks is capitalism?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Why must\u00a0Hegel\u2019s Logic start with freedom? Freedom is not presupposition-less. Freedom means free. Free assumes a move away, a compulsion for dunamis; not dunamis for the sake of dunamis but dunamis as repulsion or attraction. Hegel thinks freedom as immediacy, \u2018isness\u2019. Because of freedom, immediacy wants what \u2018isness\u2019 isn\u2019t – mediation. Two terms have appeared: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[103,124],"class_list":["post-658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-western-philosophy","tag-hegel","tag-levinas"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=658"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/658\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3887,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/658\/revisions\/3887"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}