228361065.

doc
September11, 2008
Lecture Notes on Sense Certainty and Perception
1) Now we start the actual book.
a) Hegel s the phlosopher abo!e all who has wrtte" about a"d made us se"st!e #$
would clam, too se"st!e) to what has come to be k"ow" as the %problem o& the
beg"""g' " phlosoph(. )"ce o"e has resol!ed to be critical #at a m"mum,
methodologcall( sel&*co"scous), a"d "ot dogmatic, where ca" o"e start, a"d
what possble +ust&cato" could o"e g!e &or start"g there,
b) -hs s the thrd beg"""g o& the book, a&ter the Preface a"d the Introduction.
-he Preface, $ ha!e suggested, ser!es .ute a"other purpose/ o&&er"g a brdge
&rom the Phenomenology to the Science of Logic a"d the s(stem o& the
Encyclopedia. 0ut the Introduction reall( does ser!e to "troduce the topc a"d
the method " a wa( that mot!ates a start"g*place.
) -he topc s consciousness a"d ts experience.
) -hough he has"1t told us ths #t would ha!e bee" "ce to &"sh the
Introduction b( do"g so), the pla" s to talk &rst about ts three basc aspects/
dscurs!e entries " perception, a"d the co"te"t a"d process o&
theoretical cognition,
selves a"d self-consciousness, the normative force o& co"cept*
applcato", a"d
dscurs!e exits " purposive action, a"d the co"te"t a"d process o&
practical activity.
-he" talk about the whole o& Sprt, o& whch those three aspects
are aspects, " ts tr*partte development.
2&. ths passage, &rom the Religion chapter o& the Phenomenology/
-he mome"ts are consciousness, self-consciousness, Reason, a"d Spirit **Sprt that s,
as mmedate Sprt, whch s "ot (et co"scous"ess o& Sprt. -her totalt(, taken
together, co"sttutes Sprt " ts mu"da"e e3ste"ce ge"erall(4 Sprt as such co"ta"s
the pre!ous structured shapes " u"!ersal determ"ato"s, " the mome"ts +ust
"amed...)"l( the totalt( o& Sprt s " -me, a"d the 5shapes5, whch are 5shapes5 o& the
totalt( o& Spirit, dspla( themsel!es " a temporal successo"4 &or o"l( the whole has
true actualt( a"d there&ore the &orm o& pure &reedom " the &ace o& a" 5other5, a &orm
whch e3presses tsel& " -me. 0ut the moments o& the whole, co"scous"ess, sel&*
co"scous"ess, 6easo", a"d Sprt, +ust because the( are mome"ts, ha!e "o e3ste"ce "
separato" &rom o"e a"other. 78 69:;
<"d
-hus whle the pre!ous s"gle seres " ts ad!a"ce marked the retrogress!e steps " t
b( "odes, but co"t"ued tsel& aga" &rom them " a s"gle l"e, t s "ow, as t were,
broke" at these "odes, at these u"!ersal mome"ts, a"d &alls apart "to ma"( l"es, whch,
gathered up "to a s"gle bu"dle, at the same tme comb"e s(mmetrcall( so that the
smlar d&&ere"ces " whch each partcular mome"t took shape wth" tsel& meet
together. 78 681;
0ra"dom 1 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
#$ take t that the "cluso" o& mmedate Sprt alo"g wth co"scous"ess, sel&*
co"scous"ess, a"d reaso" " the &rst passage s e3plctl( to mark the role o& the
commu"t(, whch s the other sde o& "d!dual sel&*co"scous"ess.)
) -he am s to prese"t a science of the experience of consciousness.
!) <"d the method s to start wth what we &"d " actual empirical
consciousness.
c) -he crtero" o& ade.uac( mot!ated " the Introduction s what $1!e called the
?e"u"e @"owledge co"dto"/ that we must make t at least "tellgble that t s
possble to k"ow th"gs as the( reall( are, in themsel!es, a"d "ot +ust as the( are
for co"scous"ess. -he "atural place to start, the", s wth cog"to" that s most
immediate, where our cog"t!e &acultes ha!e do"e the least work. $" partcular,
s"ce the ssue rased b( co"sderato" o& the model or metaphor o& cog"to" as
a" instrument or a medium s whether conceptualizing must be u"derstood as
alwa(s " some mporta"t wa( falsifying, we wa"t to beg" b( look"g at the
purest &orm o& receptivity we ca" &"d, wth as lttle conceptualizing #spo"ta"et()
o" our part as possble. -he atttude o& "atural co"scous"ess wth whch we
beg" s that %that m"d k"ows best whch does least.' 7c&. %He go!er"s best who
go!er"s least.'; Ae wa"t to th"k about states o& co"scous"ess that +ust take "
how th"gs are, wthout doing a"(th"g, or interfering " a"( wa( wth what s
g!e", what s prese"ted. -hese are drect, mmedate, se"sor( e3pere"ces.
d) Start"g here s also mot!ated b( the ?e"u"e @"owledge co"dto" o"
sema"tcs, " partcular as mot!ated b( the mage o& the m"d as ha!"g to
co"ceptualBe the u"co"ceptualBed #the m"d as "strume"t, or re&ract"g
medum). -he trouble there s that a"(th"g the m"d does to realt( to get t "to
graspable, "tellgble shape #"to shape where t ca" be used as evidence to draw
co"cluso"s, that s, as premises &or inferences) must cou"t as falsifying t/ as
lea!"g someth"g out, add"g or someth"g.
e) -he dea &or a post!e respo"se wll be that a broadl( h(lomorphc accou"t wll
see two d&&ere"t forms o& o"e content. -hus both the d&&ere"ce a"d the de"tt(
are respected. #-hs mea"s we "eed a specal accou"t o& ths k"d o& de"tt(*"*
d&&ere"ce, a"d that we wll get, " spades.) 0ut the common co"te"t must be
u"derstood as alread( " co"ceptual shape/ we do "ot ha!e a s"gle co"te"t &rst "
"o"co"ceptual, a"d the" " co"ceptual shape. -hat, the thought s, would make t
mpossble to sats&( the ?e"u"e @"owledge co"dto". -hs s a bg structural
d!de, e!e" within the h(lomorphc strateg(. C/ Ahat mot!ates a"d +ust&es
go"g the o"e wa( rather tha" the other, </ -he lesso"s o& the onsciousness
secto". -hat s, one upshot o& the argume"t that takes us &rom Sense ertainty to
Perception s that we must th"k o& the u"derl("g co"te"t as through*a"d*through
co"ceptuall( artculated, o" pa" o& be"g co"dem"ed to treat t as completel(
indeterminate.
&) So the pcture s someth"g lke ths/
0ra"dom 2 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
D o s s b l t ( o &
? e " u " e @ " o w l e d g e
c o " d t o "
< m p h b o u s " e s s o &
2 o " t e " t c o " d t o "
) " e 2 o " t e " t , "
N o " c o " c e p t u a l a " d
2 o " c e p t u a l E o r m s
- w o E o r m s o &
2 o " c e p t u a l 2 o " t e " t
F r o m t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n t o C o n s c i o u s n e s s
H ( l o m o r p h c S t r a t e g ( /
$ d e " t t ( o & 2 o " t e " t ,
F & & e r e " c e o & E o r m
o r
g) Note that Hegel1s partcular !erso" o& the h(lomorphc strateg( &or comb""g
de"tt( a"d d&&ere"ce #b( ha!"g two d&&ere"t dme"so"s, o"e o& whch s that
alo"g whch de"tt( s secured, the other alo"g whch d&&ere"ce s securedG"ote
that we must also be able to ha!e two d&&ere"t co"te"ts " the same &orm) wll be
dst"ct!e " "sst"g that &orm a"d co"te"t are "o"etheless not conceptually
independent o& o"e a"other.
Sense Certainty :
2) <s $ read Sense ertainty, Hegel makes two large*scale phlosophcal po"ts, a"d
alo"g the wa( starts a thrd l"e o& thought that s take" to the "e3t stage " Perception.
-he &rst s the dst"cto" betwee" immediacy of content a"d immediacy of origin. -he
seco"d s betwee" partculart( o& represe"t"g a"d represe"t"g o& partculart(.
a) -he &rst at ts most ge"eral s a #"deed, the) rato"alst po"t/ "o experience s
"tellgble as cognitively significantGas mak"g a co"trbuto" to our !nowing or
understanding a"(th"gGu"less t "!ol!es the applcato" o& concepts.
. 8ore spec&call(, Hegel makes the dst"cto" #&amlar to us &rom
Sellars) betwee" the se"se " whch se"se e3pere"ce can, a"d the se"se " whch
t ca"not, be u"derstood to be Himmediate", that s, non-inferential. -hs crtcal
0ra"dom 3 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
po"t wll be wth us throughout the dscusso" o& onsciousness. Se"se
e3pere"ce that ca" be cog"t!el( sg"&ca"t, that ca" cou"t as !nowledge,
ca"not be mmedate, whch s to sa( "o""&ere"tal, " the se"se o& "ot sta"d"g
" "&ere"tal #a"d "compatblt() relato"s. Eor the" t would be cog"t!el(
idle/ u"able to ser!e as evidence to #ustify &urther clams. $t must be "&ere"tall(
artculated at least " that t ca" ser!e as a premise " inferences. 8ore deepl(,
u"less t sta"ds " relato"s o& materal incompati$ility #"deed, as we shall see,
relato"s o& strong d&&ere"ce I e3cluso", a"d "ot +ust weak or mere d&&ere"ce),
the del!era"ces o& se"se #the content &or the h(lomorphc strateg() wll "ot be
"tellgble as determinate. So/ & determ"ate, the" sta"d"g " relato"s o&
materal "compatblt(. Eurther, & sta"d"g " relato"s o& materal
"compatblt(, the" sta"d"g " relato"s o& cou"ter&actuall( robust materal
inference #Imedato"). <"d sta"d"g " relato" o& determ"ate "egato" a"d #so)
medato" is what t s to be co"ceptuall( co"te"t&ul #co"ceptuall( artculated, "
%co"ceptual shape'), accord"g to Hegel1s "o"*ps(chologcal de&"to" o& the
co"ceptual.
. -he se"se " whch the del!era"ces o& se"se can be mmedate or
"o""&ere"tal co"cer"s "ot ther content, but the process whereb( we come to
endorse them. %hat process "eed "ot be a" inferential process. 7$" a rece"t paper
o" m( approach to obser!ato" #&or Aess a"d Aa"derer1s Reading &random),
Joh" 8cFowell takes ssue wth ths "oto" o& "o""&ere"talt(. He suggests as a
replaceme"t that +udgme"ts should cou"t as "o""&ere"tal & ther #ustification
does "ot depe"d o" e3hbt"g them as co"cluso"s o& "&ere"ces &rom someth"g
else.;
b) Seco"d, " ge"eral Hegel apprecates the sg"&ca"ce o& deixis a"d indexicality
&or empirical !nowledge. He sees them as the co"ceptual &orm o& mmedac(.
. 8ore spec&call(, he "!estgates #" the crtcal sprt o& @a"t) the
co"dto"s o& the "tellgblt( o& demo"strat!e a"d "de3cal del!era"ces o&
se"se. Here hs great dsco!er( s thatGas $ put the po"t " 'a!ing It ExplicitG
deixis presupposes anaphora.
. -he .uesto" here how unrepeata$le events #o"e se"se o& Hpartculars1)
ca" co"trbute to repeata$le conceptual content #co"ceptual co"te"t repeatables).
Sorting out the distinction between particular representing and representing
of particulars should be laid alongside the sense in which perceptual
judgments can, and the sense in which they cannot be immediate in the sense
of noninferential.
3) $t s "ot a small th"g that Hegel s the &rst moder" phlosopher #the mede!al
scholastc phlosophers o& la"guage had, as usual, alread( do"e sg"&ca"t work " the
area) to address the topcs o& deixis a"d indexicality. 7$s ths the place to talk about how
these are d&&ere"t,; -hs s a ce"tral topc " co"temporar( phlosoph( o& la"guageG
"deed, bo"e*dr(, hard*assed tech"cal phlosoph( o& la"guageGbut most people
work"g " the area #$ mea" to be sla"der"g @apla" a"d Stal"aker, amo"g the ga"ts, but
also people such as Salmo", <lmog, a"d Soames) are su&&ce"tl( g"ora"t o& ts hstor(
that the( would be asto"shed to be told that Hegel had ope"ed up the &eld. #$1m
rem"ded o& what someo"e sad about o"e o& m( teachers, ?l Harma"/ that t was a
0ra"dom > 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
calum"( to accuse hm o& be"g u"hstorcal. $" &act he s steeped " the hstor( o&
phlosoph(, a"d e!er(th"g he does s deepl( rooted " a read"g o& t. $t1s +ust that he
th"ks the hstor( o& phlosoph( started wth Cu"e.) -he( would accord that ho"or to
Erege #" %-he -hought'). #-hose who "sst that Erege be thought o& "ot +ust " the &rst
"sta"ce, but e3clus!el( as a phlosopher o& mathematcs a"d o& logc should be g!e"
pause b( the realBato" that he e3plctl( dscussed a whole ra"ge o& topcs that ha!e
become ca"o"cal, de&""g topcs " the phlosoph( o& la"guage, e!e" where the( do not
occur " logcal or mathematcal dscourse/ prom"e"t amo"g them, proposto"al atttude
ascrb"g locuto"s, demo"strat!es a"d "de3cals, pragmatc &orce, a"d the relato"s
betwee" art&cal a"d "atural la"guages.) -he more k"owledgeable mght me"to" also
Derce, be&ore mo!"g o" to 6ussell a"d 6eche"bach. -he( are u"lkel( to me"to"
Scotus a"d )ckham #though Fa!d @apla" has made some use o& Scotus o" haeccetes
G2al!" Normore has "ot l!ed " !a"K). Ae "eed a good hstor( o& the phlosophcal
a"d l"gustc dscusso" o& demo"strat!es a"d "de3cals.
>) Hegel co"sders demo"strat!es a"d "de3cals #ths*here*"ow) because the(
e3press particularity a"d unrepeata$ility.
a) $t s &or good reaso" that he looks to the use o& linguistic expressions. $t s not
that he th"ks all thought must be l"gustc. $t s that hs ge"eral pr"cple s that
we can understand the implicit only in terms of its explicit expression.
#6emember/ %La"guage s the Fase" o& Sprt.') 7$ clam that ths expressivism s
compatble wth hs pragmatism #see 2h. 2 o& (So%/ %Some Dragmatst
-hemesM'), whch " a certa" wa( pr!leges the practcal #mplct) use o&
e3presso"s o!er ther #e3plct) co"te"t. 0ut the relato"s a"d "teracto"s
betwee" them are comple3 a"d subtle.;
b)
) @a"t was !er( good o" the dst"cto" betwee" representations of relations
a"d relations of representations. -hat s the po"t o& the 2
"d
<"alog( o&
N3pere"ce. $" the e3ample there, we the temporal se.ue"tal relato"s o&
represe"tato"s " two cases/ walk"g arou"d a house, sa(, clockwse, o" the
o"e ha"d, a"d watch"g a boat dr&t dow"stream, o" the other. -hese g!e rse
to two d&&ere"t representations of relations. -he order"g s represe"ted as
su$#ective " the &rst case, a"d as o$#ective " the seco"d, " the se"se that
responsi$ility &or the relato"s o& the represe"tato"s are assg"ed to the
sub+ect " the &rst case, a"d to the ob+ect " the seco"d. -he d&&ere"ce "
assg"me"t o& respo"sblt( s a re&lecto" o& mplct modal d&&ere"ces " the
represe"tato"s o& relato"s. $t s possi$le &or me to ha!e walked arou"d the
house cou"ter*clockwse, " whch case there would ha!e bee" d&&ere"t
temporal se.ue"tal relato"s amo"g m( represe"tato"s. 0ut t s necessary
that the dr&t"g boat prese"t the temporal se.ue"tal relato"s o&
represe"tato"s that t dd. 0e"g able to mo!e &rom relato"s o&
represe"tato"s o& the same temporal se.ue"tal sort to represe"tato"s o&
relato"s o& these two .ute d&&ere"t k"ds s a" esse"tal structural eleme"t o&
what t s mplctl( or " practce to ta!e what $ ha!e as representations, $y a
sub+ect, of a" ob+ect, whch s to sa(, as represe"t"gs at all. -her
represe"tato"al purport s u""tellgble apart &rom the modal artculato" o&
the represe"tato"s o& relato"s. -hus that represe"tato"s o& relato"s e3hbt
0ra"dom 5 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
modal &eatures e3plctl( e3pressed b( the use o& co"cepts o& possblt( a"d
"ecesst( s a" esse"tal structure o& intentionality.
) Note that +ust ths s le&t out o& the %ractatus. )"e o& the dme"so"s alo"g
wth ts logcal pcture s pure a"d cr(stall"e s that there s "oth"g about
time, a"d "oth"g about modality #other tha" logical possblt( a"d "ecesst()
" t. @a"t s much more sophstcated here. <"d Hegel wll "sst, as @a"t
would ha!e, too, that apart &rom co"sderato"s o& time a"d modality, o"e
ca""ot make se"se o& semantic representational relato"s. )" ther
co"cepto" o& e3pere"ce a"d represe"tato", the %ractatus accou"t #whch "
ths sema"tc respect belo"gs " the emprcst tradto", " spte o& ts lack o&
atte"to" to epstemologcal matters) must &al.
) 0ut @a"t dd not make a correspo"d"g dst"cto" betwee" representations of
particulars a"d particular representations. He ra" the two "oto"s together
u"der the head"g o& H"tuto"1.
!) Ahat Hegel s do"g " Sense ertainty a"d Perception, s, inter alia,
e"&orc"g +ust ths dst"cto". He wa"ts to k"ow what stage*sett"g s
re.ured &or partcular #u"repeatable) represe"t"gs to be represe"tato"s of
partculars #u"repeatables). <"d hs a"swer s that a lot s re.ured. oth
repeatable representings !anaphora" and representations of repeatables
!uni#ersals" are re$uired% $" Sense ertainty #c&. #2c*d) abo!e), Hegel looks
at what s re.ured &or a" occurre"ce #per&orma"ce, e!e"t) that s particular "
the se"se o& be"g a" u"repeatable toke""g #e.g. a" uttera"ce o& H"ow1) to
make a cog"t!e co"trbuto" " !rtue o& whch t s "tellgble as a
representation. -he lesso" s that o"e "eeds some wa( o& preser!"g,
repeat"g, or recollect"g the co"te"t e3pressed b( the partcular toke""g/ the
H"ow1 s cog"t!el( sg"&ca"t because there ca" be a later %po"t"g out o&
the H"ow1'. $" Perception, the", he g!es us a" accou"t o& what t s to be a
represe"tato" o& a partcular, as opposed to a u"!ersal. -hs s the accou"t o&
the co"cept ob+ect " terms o& relato"s o& material incompati$ility.
5) Hegel1s co"cluso"s &rom Sense ertainty are/
a) Ae "eed at least se"se u"!ersals to make se"se o& se"sor( k"owledge or
e3pere"ce. Eor we "eed someth"g to sta"d " incompati$ility a"d inference
relato"s " order to ha!e content.
b) Ae "eed some wa( o& holding on to, recollecting, or repeating u"repeatable
e!e"ts " order &or ther occurre"ce to co"trbute to cog"to".
c) -he stuato"s take" " " se"sor( e3pere"ce must ha!e "ter"al structure/
predcat"g someth"g ge"eral o& someth"g partcular. $" Perception we1ll see
how ths car!"g up o& +udgme"t*le!el "compatbltes works. #<"d " )orce
and *nderstanding, we1ll mo!e up &rom the "ow artculated +udgme"ts to the
infinite 2o"cept.)
6) Ae are e3am""g k"owledge as a phe"ome"o". -hat s, the ge"eral topc o&
onsciousness s the role o& immediacy " cog"to". -he spec&c topc o& Sense
ertainty s a spec&c conception o& the role o& mmedac(.
0ra"dom 6 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
9) $mmedac( a) " the appl(ing o& co"cepts !s. b) mmedac( " the co"cepts
appled. -he co"cepto" o& se"se certa"t( arses &rom the msmat"g o& two deas, o"e
susta"able, a"d the other "ot. -he good dea s that +udgme"ts that are mmedate " the
se"se o& be"g "o""&ere"tall( elcted pla( a specal +ust&cator( role " emprcal
k"owledge. -he bad dea s that to pla( that role, +udgme"ts must be mmedate " the
se"se o& "!ol!"g "o "&ere"tal commtme"ts, he"ce "o applcato"s o& co"cepts.
$mmedac( " the &rst se"se has to do wth perceptual +udgme"ts as +udgings/ as datable,
u"repeatable acts or events. $mmedac( " the seco"d se"se co"cer"s rather what s
+udged/ the contents o& perceptual +udgme"ts.
8)
a) -he bad co"cepto" o& mmedac( #9b) tur"s o" thinking of the authority of
immediacy as in#ol#ing no co-ordinate responsibility. $" &act, the relato"s o&,
medato" a"d determ"ate "egato" amo"g co"cepts make each a ce"ter o&
authort( #&or ma"(, o& the k"d o& mmedac() that pote"tall( compete wth each
other.
b) %Se"se certa"t(' 7s""lche ?ewOhet; s Hegel1s term &or a co"cepto" o& the
source a"d "ature o& the authort( o& emprcal k"owledgeGts credblt(, ts
clam to correct"ess, ts rght to be reled o"Gthat takes t to be independent "
ths se"se.
c) <t the ce"ter o& ths co"cepto" les the dea o& an autonomous stratum o&
cog"t!e epsodes whose authority der!es &rom ther immediacy. 7c&. Sellars "
ND8 o" epsodes whose cog"t!e=epstemc authort( attaches to to!enings rather
tha" to types.; -he( are authoritative " the se"se o& be"g basc " the order o&
+ust&cato"/ our e"ttleme"t to a"( emprcal clam or commtme"t der!es
ultmatel( &rom the wa( t s a"chored " these mmedate e3pere"tal epsodes.
-he( are autonomous " the se"se that the capact( to ha!e such epsodes s take"
"ot to depe"d o" a"( other capactes. -hs mea"s " partcular that t does "ot
depe"d o" a"( capactes to deplo( concepts. Eor & the capact( to ha!e such
epsodes dd depe"d o" the capact( to deplo( co"cepts, those epsodes would be
a"swerable &or ther correct"ess to the "orms go!er""g the applcato" o& those
co"cepts. -her authority would accord"gl( "!ol!e a coord"ate, recprocal
responsi$ilityGt would "!ol!e the ack"owledgme"t o& another locus o&
authority, pote"tall( co"&lct"g, a"d so lmt"g. P"dersta"d"g the authort( o&
mmedac( as be"g " ths wa( independent s the de&ormato" that de&"es ths
co"cepto" o& emprcal k"owledge.
:) -heme/ Semantic atomism #the autonomy clam) as a co"cepto" " the categor(
o& independence #authort(). Ae wll later #" Self-onsciousness), come to de"t&( ths
co"cepto" o& authort( as autonomous #a"d so u"bou"ded), as "!ol!"g "o
correspo"d"g, correlat!e, responsi$ility, wth the strateg( o& 8aster(. -he o!erall
lesso" s that ths co"cepto" o& authort( as auto"omous "depe"de"ce #at the ce"ter o&
the metametaco"ceptual co"stellato" o& deas Hegel calls HQersta"d1) must be succeeded
b( o"e o& authort( as merel( o"e eleme"t " a larger whole that alwa(s "cludes a
correspo"d"g correlat!e respo"sblt( #depe"de"ce), a co"cepto" o& freedom that
sta"ds at the ce"ter o& the metametaco"ceptual co"cepto" o& HQer"u"&t1. Slogan: From
independence to freedom% $t s ths Qer"u"&t co"cepto" o& the "tmate "terrelato"s o&
0ra"dom 9 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
authort( a"d respo"sblt( re.ured &or determinate contentfulness o& both that s to be
modeled o" recprocal recog"to".
10) Fscuss co"temporar( !ews about a 5"o"co"ceptual eleme"t5 " proposto"al
co"te"t/ drect re&ere"ce a"d prmt!e demo"strato", de re bele& as e3pla"atorl( pror
to de dicto. -he mporta"ce o& 8cFowell1s "!ocato" o& demonstrative co"cepts a"d
se"ses. 8e/ a"aphora as what s "eeded to see the demo"strat!e eleme"t " e3pere"ce
as &ull( co"ceptual #" the Hegela" se"se o& artculated b( relato"s o& materal
"&ere"ce*a"d*"compatblt().
11) )utl"e o& Sense ertainty/
$. $" the &rst, the authort(*co"&err"g mmedac( s assocated wth the ob+ect o&
k"owledge, wth what s se"sed. -hat s, substa"ce or the "*tsel& s co"ce!ed
as mmedate, a"d k"owledge s u"derstood as ac.ur"g ts authort( &rom ts
status as k"owledge o& the mmedate. -hs co"cepto" s "troduced " 7:>;,
a"d the argume"t whereb( that co"cepto" ca" be see" to be "cohere"t whe"
what s mplct " t s made e3plct s prese"ted " paragraphs 7:5; a"d 7:6;.
$$. $" the seco"d, the authort(*co"&err"g mmedac( s assocated wth the sub+ect
o& k"owledge, wth what se"ses. -hat s, co"scous"ess as what th"gs are
someth"g &or s co"ce!ed as mmedate, a"d k"owledge s u"derstood as
ac.ur"g ts authort( &rom ts status as mmedate k"owledge. -hs
co"cepto" s "troduced " 7100;, a"d the argume"t whereb( that co"cepto"
ca" be see" to be "cohere"t whe" what s mplct " t s made e3plct s
prese"ted " 7101; a"d 7102;.
$$$. $" the thrd, the authort(*co"&err"g mmedac( s assocated wth the act
o& k"ow"g, wth what se"s"g s. -hat s, the relato" betwee" the "*tsel& a"d
the co"scous"ess t s someth"g &or s co"ce!ed as mmedate, a"d k"owledge
s u"derstood as ac.ur"g ts authort( &rom ts status as mmedate k"ow"g o&
the mmedate. -hs co"cepto" s "troduced " 7103;, a"d the argume"t
whereb( that co"cepto" ca" be see" to be "cohere"t whe" what s mplct " t
s made e3plct s prese"ted " paragraphs 710>; to 7109;.
12) < 0ad <rgume"t/ Here s the basc herme"eutc challe"ge o& read"g Sense
ertainty/ -here s a da"ger o& see"g Hegel1s argume"t " the &rst two mo!eme"ts o&
Sense ertainty
1
as mo!"g &ar too .uckl( to the co"cluso" that cog"to" must "!ol!e
u"!ersals. Eor t loo!s as though he s +ust sa("g that s"ce anything ca" be respo"ded
to appropratel( b( a drectl( re&ere"tal Hths1, the Hths1 must be u"derstood as a
u"!ersal, "deed, as a" absolutel( ge"eral co"cept. -hus he sa(s #summ"g up hs "tal
dscusso")/
$t s as a u"!ersal too that we utter what the se"suous 7co"te"t; s. Ahat we sa(
s/ H-hs1, .e. the universal -hs4 or, Ht s1, .e. &eing in generalM 78:9;
Smlarl(, whe" $ sa( H$1, ths s"gular H$1, $ sa( " ge"eral all H$1s4 e!er(o"e s
what $ sa(, e!er(o"e s H$1, ths s"gular H$1. 78102;
-he argume"t would the" take the &orm o& a" a"alog(. -he repeatable e3presso" H6ed1
apples to a lot o& partculars. So Hred1 s a predcate, whch e3presses a co"cept a"d
1
)rg"all( beg"""g " 78:5*:6; drected toward k"owledge o& the mmedate, repeated " 78100*102;
wth respect to mmedate k"owledge.
0ra"dom 8 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
sta"ds &or a u"!ersal or propert(/ the u"!ersal or propert( shared b( all th"gs that are
properl( called Hred1. $" the same wa(, the repeatable e3presso" Hths1 #H$1) apples to
lots o& partculars. $"deed, &or any partcular #" the case o& H$1, partcular sel&) t s
possble to re&er to t b( us"g a toke""g o& the repeatable t(pe Hths1. So Hths1 #H$1) s a
predcate, whch e3presses a co"cept a"d sta"ds &or a u"!ersal or propert(/ the u"!ersal
or propert( shared b( all th"gs that are properl( called Hths1 #H$1), that s, all partculars
#or partcular sel!es).
Spelled out ths wa(, the &allac( should be ob!ous. <lthough Hths1 s a repeatable
e3presso" t(pe that ca" be appled to a"( partcular th"g or stuato", t s "ot
predicated o& them, t s "ot descri$ing them, t s "ot a u"!ersal " the se"se o&
e3press"g a property that the( share or a concept that the( &all u"der. -o re&er to
someth"g as Hths1 s "ot to characterBe t " a"( wa(, certa"l( "ot to attrbute a
propert( to t, e!e" a !er( ge"eral o"e. H-hs1, H$1, a"d Hred1 are all repeatable
e3presso"s, a"d ca" be appled o" d&&ere"t occaso"s to d&&ere"t partculars. 0ut the
se"se o& Happl(1 s .ute d&&ere"t/ re&ere"tal " the &rst case, predcat!e " the seco"d.
H-hs1 a"d H$1 are "ot true of a"(th"g. Dut a"other wa(, there s a per&ectl( good se"se "
whch Hths1 a"d H$1 mea" someth"g d&&ere"t o" d&&ere"t occaso"s o& ther toke""g. $"
order to k"ow what s mea"t b( Hths1, or who s mea"t b( H$1, t s "ot e"ough to
u"dersta"d the use o& the e3presso" type " ge"eral. )"e must also k"ow the
crcumsta"ces o& ts partcular toke""g. $" ths se"se the demo"strat!e a"d "de3cal
e3presso" t(pes are am$iguous. 0ut that s "ot the same as sa("g the( e3press
u"!ersals. H0a"k1 s "ot a u"!ersal that apples both to the shores o& r!ers a"d to
&"a"cal "sttuto"s. )& course " a"other se"se, these words are "ot ambguous. Eor
what each toke""g mea"s s determ"ed " a u"&orm wa( &rom the crcumsta"ces "
whch t s produced. <s @apla" has taught us to sa(, d&&ere"t toke""gs o& e3presso"s
lke ths ha!e the same character #t(pe), but e3press d&&ere"t contents. No dst"cto" o&
ths sort apples to e3presso"s such as Hred1. &he predicate'term
!uni#ersal'particular" distinction and the character'content distinction are actually
orthogonal to one another, s"ce " addto" to s"gular term t(pes where a s"gle
character determ"es d&&ere"t co"te"ts &or d&&ere"t toke""gs #such as Hths1 a"d H$1) a"d
predcate t(pes whose characters assg" the same co"te"t to all toke""gs #such as Hred1),
there are s"gular term t(pes whose characters assg" the same co"te"t to all toke""gs
#such as HHegel1, or a sutable le"gthe""g o& that "ame) a"d predcate t(pes where a
s"gle character determ"es d&&ere"t co"te"ts &or d&&ere"t toke""gs #such as %Ms the
same color as ths sample,').
)"e mght, $ suppose, co"struct or de&"e a se"se o& Hu"!ersal1 gerr(ma"dered so as to
see these as speces o& a ge"us. 0ut the result wll "ot be a"(th"g lke the ord"ar( use
o& Hu"!ersal1, a"d " partcular, wll "ot (eld the use o& Hu"!ersal1 that Hegel emplo(s
" the mmedatel( subse.ue"t dscusso" o& Perception, whch s supposed to take as ts
raw materals the co"cluso"s (elded b( Sense ertainty. <"( argume"t that started
&rom co"sderato"s such as those "dcated abo!e co"cer""g demo"strat!e a"d
"de3cal e3presso"s lke Hths1 a"d H$1 a"d drew co"cluso"s about the "ecesst( o&
ack"owledg"g the role " percepto" o& se"se u"!ersals such as red #the topc o&
Perception) would be &allacous, through depe"de"ce o" a" llegtmate assmlato".
0ra"dom : 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
13) Ae should dst"gush a) classificatory a"d b) recollective repeatablt(.
1>) < ?ood <rgume"t/ -he &rst sort o& repeatablt( o& co"te"t emerges &rom the
realBato" that the authort( o& mmedac( s tsel& a repeatable !ind o& authort(.
<" actual se"se*certa"t( s "ot merel( ths pure mmedac(, but a" instance o& t.
78:2;
Ae see ths because the same authort( ca" be accorded to different co"te"ts. )"e
toke""g o& Hths1 pcks out a tree, a"other a house.
2
Eor co"!e"e"ce " our dscusso",
we mght adopt the co"!e"to" o& re&err"g to toke""gs b( plac"g e3presso"s wth"
sla"ted l"es, a"d subscrpt"g to dst"gush toke""gs o& the same e3presso" t(pe.
-he" =ths=

, whch pcks out a tree, has a d&&ere"t co"te"t &rom =ths=

+
, whch pcks out a
house, a"d a d&&ere"t co"te"t (et &rom some =ths=
k
, whch pcks out a sto"e. Nach has
the authort( o& mmedac(, that s, o& e3pere"ces, putat!e or ca"ddate k"ow"gs, wth
whch o"e smpl( finds o"esel&. 0ut the co"te"tGwhat s g!e" or prese"ted to the
sub+ect, what makes se"se k"owledge %appear as the richest k"d o& k"owledge'78:1;G
s " each case d&&ere"t. -hat the co"te"ts o& d&&ere"t acts o& se"sor( k"ow"g ca" at
least barel( d&&er &rom o"e a"other s the !er( weakest se"se " whch those co"te"ts
could be thought o& as determ"ate. #<s we look to e!er stro"ger "ecessar( co"dto"s o&
determ"ate"ess o& co"te"t, we wll &"d the mplct &aults " d&&ere"t co"cepto"s o&
mmedac(.)
8erel( to dst"gush "sta"ces o& mmedac( &rom o"e a"other, to see them as d&&ere"t
"sta"ces o& o"e k"d o& authort(, s alread( " a weak se"se mplctl( to class&(,
compare, a"d characterBe them.
ut the mere fact that the same sort of authority, the authority of the immediacy of
the origin, of the process by which the e(perience is elicited, is in#ested on different
occasions, in contents that must)for them to count as ha#ing the significance e#en
of bare referrings or pointings-out at all)be recogni*able as different already
implicitly brings into play a certain kind of uni#ersal applying to them% For 'this'
j

and 'this'
k
ha#e in common their difference from 'this'
i
% +sing ,- to indicate mere
difference or distinguishability of content, this is the fact that 'this'
j
'this'
i
and
'this'
k
'this'
i
% .f we adopt the con#ention of using angle brackets to indicate
repeatable kinds, then they are both of the kind /'this'
i
0% 1erely to distinguish
instances of immediacy from one another, to see them as different instances of one
kind of authority, is already in a weak sense implicitly to classify, compare, and
characteri*e them%

15) Hegel clams that the stro"ger, e3clus!e se"se o& Hd&&ere"t1 s also mplctl( "
pla( " determ"atel( co"te"t&ul e3pere"ce, e!e" accord"g to the se!erel( restrcted
co"cepto" o& se"se certa"t(. Fa( a"d "ght exclude o"e a"other, the e3pere"ce o& o"e
2
Hegel splts up the pure "dcato" that would be made e3plct b( a toke""g o& Hths1 "to temporal a"d
spatal dme"so"s, whch would be made e3plct b( toke""gs o& H"ow1 a"d Hhere1, a"d makes the po"t
"dcated " terms o& a %"ow that s "ght' a"d a %"ow that s da(', o" the o"e ha"d #" 78:6;), a"d a %here
that s a house' a"d a %here that s a tree' o" the other #" 78101;). 0ut the mportato" o& ths dst"cto"
s rrele!a"t to the po"t $ am dscuss"g.
0ra"dom 10 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
cancels or opposes the e3pere"ce o& the other. -hs s to sa( that e3pere"ces ca" appear
as incompati$le, " the se"se that ther co"te"ts cannot both smulta"eousl( ha!e the
authort( o& mmedac(Gthe( ought "ot be e"dorsed " a s"gle act. S"ce the authort(
o& mmedac( ca" be "!ested " "compatble co"te"ts, t ca" co"tradct tsel&/ authorBe
materall( incompati$le commtme"ts, commtme"ts that u"dercut or ca"cel each other
out. Hegel sa(s o& o"e such e3ample/
0oth truths ha!e the same authe"tcato" 70eglaubgu"g I warra"t, crede"tals;,
!B. the mmedac( o& see"g, a"d the certa"t( a"d assura"ce that both ha!e about
ther k"ow"g4 but the o"e truth !a"shes 7!erschw"det; " the other. 78101;
Now if the authority of immediacy simply contradicts itself, then it is no authority at
all% .n treating immediacy as conferring some sort of credibility or right to endorse,
we are implicitly distinguishing between the kind of authority, and the contents of its
instances% 2e are, in effect treating the incompatibility as a feature of the contents
in which the authority of immediacy is in#ested% -he co"te"t that $ merel( "dcate at
o"e tme we mght e3press #us"g the least commttal &eature*plac"g la"guage) b( sa("g
%$t s "ght,' s "ot o"l( d&&ere"t &rom but "compatble wth the co"te"t $ mght smlarl(
"dcate at a"other tme, whch we could e3press as %$t s da(.' #$t would beg the
.uesto" aga"st se"se certa"t( to "sst that the co"scous"ess "!ol!ed must appl( these
co"cepts. -he dea s that we use those co"cepts +ust to keep track o& the rch
"o"co"ceptual co"te"t that the co"scous"ess " .uesto", accord"g to the co"cepto" o&
se"se*certa"t(, merel( po"ts out, e"terta"s, or co"templates.) -o recog"Be a"( sort o&
co"te"t here at all s to ack"owledge that two such co"te"ts ca" co"tradct #stro"gl(
co"trast wth) o"e a"other.
-hs relato" o& "compatblt(, whch Hegel o&te" talks about us"g the term
He"tgege"setBe"1 7e.g. " 8:8;, #he also uses %ausschleOe"') s stro"ger tha" mere
d&&ere"ce, a"d t "duces a correspo"d"gl( rcher sort o& u"!ersal. Ae mght use HR1 to
"dcate the "oto" o& "compatblt(, a"d so e3press the &act that a Hths1 #or H"ow1) that
s "ght #that s, a co"te"t that could be pcked out b( a toke""g o& Hths1 produced at
"ght) %!a"shes' "to o"e that s da(/ ths=
l
R=ths=
m
. $"compatblt( o& co"te"ts " ths
se"se s b( "o mea"s as promscuous a relato" as mere d&&ere"ce amo"g co"te"ts. Eor
"sta"ce, t "eed "ot be the case that ths=
l
R=ths=

G&or trees ca" appear at "ght or " the

da(. -he u"!ersal SR=ths=
m
T, whch Hegel calls %"ot da(Ma "egat!e " ge"eral,'
78:8; s a ge"u"e u"!ersal, u"der whch =ths=
l
, but "ot =ths=

or =ths=
+
&alls. $" &act, &or
ma"( purposes we ca" represe"t the repeatable co"te"t o& a" e3pere"ce or clam b( the
set o& e3pere"ces or clams that are "compatble wth t. -he co"te"ts o& commtme"ts
are determ"ate "so&ar as the class o& other commtme"ts the( e3clude or are
"compatble wth d&&er &rom o"e a"other.
15) -he e3pere"ce #" a much more ce"trall( Hegela" se"se) o& o"e certa"t(
#commtme"t, e"dorseme"t) !a"sh"g " a"other co"ssts " ts ha!"g ts authority
u"dercut b( the ad!e"t o& a co"trar(, "compatble certa"t( wth crede"tals o& e3actl(
the same k"d. 3f% 4egel5s .ntroduction
16) &he first claim . am taking 4egel to be making in Sense Certainty is that the
possibility of such an e(perience shows that sense certainty already implicitly
acknowledges the presence of a universal element in its conception of the authority
0ra"dom 11 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
of immediacy% Ahat s pcked out b( a barel( re&err"g =ths=
"
that s a ra""g ca" be
see" to be li!e what s pcked out b( a barel( re&err"g =ths=
o
that s a s"ow"g " that
both o& them are "compatble wth #rule out, e3clude, would !a"sh ", ca""ot be
comb"ed " a s"gle act wth) a =ths=
p
that s &"e, but not wth a =ths=
m
that s da( or a
=ths=
l
that s "ght #though these e3clude each other). Datter"s o& "compatblt( a"d
compatblt( that ca" be shared b( d&&ere"t acts o& se"sor( aware"ess group them "to
k"ds e3hbt"g repeatable co"te"ts that are determ"ate " a se"se stro"ger tha" that
"duced b( ther mere dst"gushablt(. $"sst"g that the cog"t!e %rch"ess' o& acts o&
se"sor( aware"ess re.ures ack"owledg"g them as determ"atel( co"te"t&ul " at least
ths co"trast!e se"se rules out a partcular wa( o& th"k"g about ther co"te"ts as
mmedate. $t rules out ther be"g mmedate " the se"se o& be"g merel( particular, as
"!ol!"g "o generality, "o aware"ess o& universals, a"d so "o e!e" mplct
classification, comparison, or characterizing.
19) -he %0ad <rgume"t' s bad only " that t does "ot get us all the way to the
co"cluso" that determ"ate se"se u"!ersals must be " pla( e!e" " the minimal
del!era"ces o& se"suous mmedac(. $t s +ust the first step " the argume"t. Ahat t
does g!e us s that we must u"dersta"d the authort( that s "!ested " a co"te"t b( what
s e3pressed b( the use o& a demo"strat!e or "de3cal as a" instance o& a !ind o&
authort(. -hat k"d s assocated wth the t(pe. <"d t s esse"tal #a"d "ot +ust
accde"tal) to that k"d o& authort( that t can be "!ested " different co"te"ts/ those that
would be e3pressed b( different to!enings o& that same t(pe. -hat s the seco"d step o&
the argume"t. -he" we must show that " order to grasp that ge"eral k"d o& authort(
#whch we must do " order to grasp a"( "sta"ce o& tG&or the "sta"ce has ts authort(
o"l( as a" "sta"ce o& that k"d) we must dst"gush two d&&ere"t relato"s that the
d&&ere"t co"te"ts that ca" be "!ested wth authort( o& that same k"d ca" sta"d " to o"e
a"other/ be"g merel(, but compatbl( d&&ere"t, a"d be"g "compatble. -hat wll take
us &orward to Perception. (nother "ecessar( co"dto" o& deplo("g that demo"strat!e*
"de3cal k"d o& authort( s that we ca" %preser!e' or %hold o"to' the contents o&
pre!ous toke""gs, e!e" though those toke""gs themsel!es are u"repeatable. Eor u"less
we ca" do that #a"aphorcall(), succeed"g o"e prese"tato" wth that k"d o& authort( b(
a" "compatble o"e wll +ust ca"cel the &ormer. Ae1ll ha!e to co"clude we were wrong
whe" we sad %Now s "ght,' because "ow s " &act da(. -he result would "ot be
k"owledge, but a ca"dle &lcker"g " the w"d.
18) So the argume"t would seem to ha!e the &ollow"g steps/
a) 7Ahat reall( s show" b( the %0ad <rgume"t' &or u"!ersals be"g "!ol!ed
" demo"strat!e or "de3cal thoughts/; $" order to u"dersta"d the authority
o& partcular represe"t"gs whose co"te"ts would be e3pressed b( the use o&
demo"strat!es a"d "de3cals, o"e must u"dersta"d t as a" instance o& the
general type o& authort( clamed b( all u"repeatable toke""gs o& that
repeatable t(pe. %<" actual se"se*certa"t( s "ot merel( ths pure
mmedac(, but a" "sta"ce o& t.'78 :2;,
b) -hat re.ures u"dersta"d"g that authort( o& the !er( same t(pe, assocated
wth #what s e3pressed b() d&&ere"t toke""gs o& the t(pe H"ow1, &or "sta"ce,
can be "!ested " different co"te"ts &rom the org"al o"e. Eor o"e does "ot
u"dersta"d this k"d o& authort( #Sellars1s %toke"*credblt(', co"trasted
0ra"dom 12 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
wth %t(pe*credblt(') u"less o"e does dst"gush t &rom the sort o&
authort( that s "!ested e.uall( " all toke""gs o& the same t(pe,
"depe"de"tl( o& the co"te3t or crcumsta"ces o& toke""g. <s a sloga" &or
ths po"t, we ca" sa(/ o"e must dst"gush the k"d o& authort( " #a) as
to!en*credblt( rather tha" type*credblt(. 7:6;*7:8; seem to ha!e as ther
po"t that " tak"g the "ow, ths, or here to be someth"g that ca" be
co"+o"ed wth different co"te"ts #"ght=da(, house=tree) we are " some se"se
tak"g t to be u"!ersal/ at least repeatable. $ am clam"g that ths does "ot
(et get us to the &ull co"cluso". 0ut the %!a"sh"g' o& the "ght "to the da(,
the %co"!erso" "to ts opposte' o& the house "to the tree take us to the "e3t
step/
c) ?rasp"g what s dst"ct!e about toke"*credblt( re.ures realB"g that
amo"g the d&&ere"t co"te"ts that ca" be "!ested wth the same k"d o& toke"*
credble authort(, some are such that the( can be comb"ed " a single
toke""g #as well as "!ested " different o"es), a"d others are such that
though the( ca" be "!ested " different toke""gs, the( ca"not be "!ested "
o"e a"d the same toke""g. -hs s the d&&ere"ce betwee" %da(' a"d %&"e',
o" the o"e ha"d, a"d %da(' a"d %"ght' o" the other. Ah( must o"e make ths
dst"cto", $& whe" o"e &"ds o"esel& "o"*"&ere"tall( #%$mmedac( o&
org"') wth a co"te"t that would be e3pressed b( some &eature*plac"g
e3presso" such as %Now s da(,' that s not practcall( co"strued as
excluding some other possble co"te"ts #%Now s "ght,') the" t s completel(
indeterminate/ &"d"g out that "ow s da( rules out "oth"g else, s
compatble wth "ow be"g a"(th"g else at all. Eurther #a"d ths s the
gra!ame" o& 7:5;*7:6;), we ca""ot dst"gush the d&&ere"t to!enings o& H"ow1
a"d Hhere1 unless we k"ow that the &act that one o& them s "ght a"d the other
da(, or o"e a house a"d the other a tree means that we are deal"g wth two
different toke""gs #o& the same t(pe). -he &act that o"e here s house a"d the
other s gree" does not mea" that the( are d&&ere"t toke""gs o& Hhere1.
1:) -here s a seco"d l"e o& thought e"ta"gled wth ths o"e throughout Sense
ertainty, whch comes to be the ce"tral &ocus " the thrd mo!eme"t o& the secto".
78103*8; -he ssue t addresses s what s re.ured &or a dateable, "tr"scall(
u"repeatable act or e!e"tGa u".ue occurre"ceGto be assocated wth a co"te"t that ca"
be %held o"to' or %preser!ed' a&ter the e3prato" o& the act tsel&, so as to be a!alable &or
comparso" wth the co"te"ts o& other such acts.
20) Dutt"g the po"t a"other wa(, & we are to succeed " treat"g the u"repeatable
#"ot merel( partcular, but u".ue as a" occurre"ce) act o& se"s"g as the source o&
epstemc authort( #2o"cepto" $$$ &rom the )utl"e " #5) abo!e), t must be possble to
treat that authort( as "!ested " a co"te"t " a wa( that s not u"dercut b( the &act that
the same sort o& authort( ma( " a different, subse.ue"t act be "!ested " a"
"compatble co"te"t. -o do that, we ha!e to be able to &ocus o" that co"te"t, the o"e
that the &rst act e"ttles us to e"dorse, "depe"de"tl( o& what co"te"ts ma( be "troduced
or !aldated b( other acts. &he act as such is intrinsically unrepeatable% ut unless its
content is in some sense repeatable, we cannot see the act as introducing or endorsing
a content at all% -he challe"ge s to see what s presupposed " mak"g a" act=co"te"t
0ra"dom 13 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
dst"cto" o& ths sort. -he co"cluso" wll be that there s "o wa( to make se"se o& ths
dst"cto" & we +ust look at the s"gle act, "depe"de"tl( o& ts relato"s to other acts.
#6n anti-atomist conclusion%) -he other acts we must co"sder, howe!er, are "ot acts
wth the same k"d o& authort( but different #e!e" incompati$le) co"te"ts, as was the
case wth the argume"t aga"st mmedac( as pure partculart(. -he( are other acts wth
the same co"te"t, a"d wth a" authort( that s inherited &rom the authort( o& the
mmedac( o& the org"al act. -he later act wll "ot be mmedate " the same se"se as
the org"al o"e, but wll look to ts mmedac( as the source o& ts seco"d*ha"d authort(.
6ltogether these considerations will rule out thinking of the content as immediate in
the sense of being unrepeatable in the way the uni$uely occurring act is%
21) 6ny such tokening can, accordingly, only be understood as in#esting a
content with the authority of immediacy if it is seen as an element !4egel says
7moment8" in a larger, temporally e(tended, whole comprising also acts of different
types% 2ompare/ a"( e3pere"ce must also be a characterBato", a" eleme"t " a larger,
e3te"ded whole comprs"g also other u"!ersals.
-he result"g u"dersta"d"g s o& the Now, a"d he"ce mmedac( " ge"eral as thoroughl(
medated. Eor be"g preser!able or recollectable " the a"aphorc wa(, we "ow realBe, s
the be"g o& the Now, a" esse"tal presupposto" o& the possblt( o& mmedac(
co"&err"g epstemc authort( o" a determ"ate co"te"t. -he possblt( o& Uhold"g &astU
to the Now #" &act a"aphorcall(), mak"g t "to someth"g repeata$le whle preser!"g
ts sel&same co"te"t, b( co"trast to the t(pe S"owT, whch though repeatable does "ot
preser!e the co"te"t o& a s"gle toke""g or ="ow=, s esse"tal to the "oto" o& mmedac(
"!est"g a partcular co"te"t wth ts authort(/
&he 5Now5 a"d the pointing out of the 5Now5 are thus so co"sttuted that "ether
the o"e "or the other s someth"g mmedate a"d smple, but a mo!eme"t whch
co"ta"s !arous mome"ts. 78109;
22) -hs accou"t prese"ts a crucal &act about the use o& demo"strat!es a"d smlar
"de3cal e3presso"s " co"trbut"g to emprcal k"owledge. +eixis presupposes
anaphora, #2&. 'a!ing It Explicit, 2hapter 9.)
23) -he co"cepto" o& emprcal k"owledge that Hegel calls %se"se certa"t('
mstake"l( tres to u"dersta"d the role o& immediacy of originGthe mmedac( o& the act
o& e"dorsing a co"te"tG" terms o& !arous co"cepto"s o& immediacy of contentGthe
mmedac( o& what s e"dorsed. .mmediacy is a category of independence, in the
normati#e sense of authority without correlati#e responsibility. Sense ertainty
dsmsses two se"ses " whch o"e mght take se"sor( co"te"t to be mmedate.
a) 3ontent immediacy as particularity s the de"al o& contrastive repeatability, or
the "!ol!eme"t o& u"!ersals or ge"eralt( " a"( &orm. -hs mea"s that
possesso" #or grasp) o& some se"sor( co"te"t s "depe"de"t o& a"( relato" to
other acts wth co"te"ts that are smlar " some respect, or that ha!e "compatble
co"te"tsGwhch "duce respects o& smlart( amo"g co"te"ts, as t were,
horBo"tall(. -he dea s that class&("g or characterB"g a partcular co"te"t b(
br"g"g t u"der a u"!ersal "!ol!es compar"g t wth others, whch accord"gl(
ha!e a certa" sort o& recprocal authort( o!er the co"te"t o& the org"al
partcular. -hat the co"te"t o& o"e act should " ths wa( be respo"sble to the
0ra"dom 1> 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
co"te"ts o& other actsGso that what t s depe"ds o" what the( areGs what ths
sort o& co"te"t mmedac( rules out. $t tur"s out that co"te"t ca""ot be mmedate
" ths se"se a"d stll be determ"ate " a m"mal se"se.
b) 3ontent immediacy as temporal uni$ueness s the de"al o& recollective
repeatability. -hs mea"s that possesso" #or grasp) o& some se"sor( co"te"t s
"depe"de"t o& a"( relato" to other acts wth the !er( same co"te"t #"ot +ust "
some respects, but " all respects). 0ut apart &rom ther as t were !ertcal relato"
to other acts that "hert ther co"te"t a"d authort( &rom acts o& mmedate
se"sor( aware"ess, the co"te"ts o& those acts are as e!a"esce"t as the acts
themsel!es. So "o determ"ate co"te"t ca" be mmedate " ths se"se ether.
23) -he structural presupposto"s &or se"sor( aware"ess $ am clam"g Hegel s
"sst"g upo" here are "ot +ust ""o!ato"s o& hs. Eor the( ca" be see" as de!elopme"ts
o& the structure o& tra"sce"de"tal s("theses culm"at"g " e3pere"ce that @a"t o&&ers "
the < edto" deducto" o& the categores " the &rst 2rt.ue.
3
-o (eld a"(th"g
recog"Bable as e3pere"ce,
apprehension in intuition must be capable o&
reproduction in imagination, a"d these reproducto"s must the" be sutable &or
recognition in a concept.
-o be cog"t!el( sg"&ca"t, the sort o& po"t"g*out that we would e3press e3plctl( b(
the use o& demonstratives must be capable o& be"g pcked up a"d reproduced #preser!ed)
b( a" act o& the sort we would e3press e3plctl( b( the use o& anaphorically dependent
pronouns. -o amou"t to a"(th"g recog"Bable as e!e" m"mall( determ"ate co"te"ts,
the repeatables so co"sttuted must the" be capable o& be"g class&ed u"der !arous
dst"gushable a"d co"trast"g k"ds or u"!ersals. -he two se"ses " whch we are to
co"clude that the co"te"ts o& our se"sor( e3pere"ces ca" "ot be co"strued as mmedate
the" correspo"d to de"("g that " order to ha!e them we must be able to reproduce or to
recog"Be them.
2>) <" o!erall map o& ths co"ceptual terrtor( " Sense ertainty mght the" look lke
ths/
3
<:8*106.
0ra"dom 15 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
S u p p o s e d
e " t a l m e " t
p r e c l u d e
$ m m e d a c ( o &
o n t e n t
9 i s t i n c t i o n s o f S e n s e C e r t a i n t y
# e r s u s
$ m m e d a c ( o &
- r i g i n
< s - e m p o r a l
P " . u e " e s s /
F e " a l o &
6 e c o l l e c t ! e
6 e p e a t a b l t (
< s D a r t c u l a r t ( /
F e " a l o &
2 o " t r a s t ! e
6 e p e a t a b l t (
6 e p r e s e " t " g s o &
D a r t c u l a r t (
# e r s u s
D a r t c u l a r t ( o &
6 e p r e s e " t " g s
0 a d $ d e a s
t w o
! e r s o " s
8 e d a t e d 2 o " t e " t s
< " a p h o r c
6 e c o l l e c t a b l t (
m a k e p o s s b l e
Perception :
1) )utl"e o& Dercepto"/
$. 7112;*7116;/ <ccou"t o& how th"gs look to us #the phe"ome"ologcal,
retrospect!e co"scous"ess).
$$. 7119;/ Erst e3pere"ce o& phe"ome"al perce!"g co"scous"ess. 0oth the
u"t( a"d d!erst( o& propertes a"d ob+ects are see" as ob+ect!el( " the
"depe"de"t ob+ects a"d propertes.
$$$. 7118;*7120;/ Seco"d e3pere"ce o& perce!"g co"scous"ess. F!de the
source o& u"t( a"d the source o& d!erst( betwee" sub+ect!e a"d ob+ect!e
poles #act o& perce!"g a"d what s perce!ed).
a) )b+ect!e u"t(, sub+ect!e d!erst(.
b) Sub+ect!e u"t(, ob+ect!e d!erst(.
$Q. 7121;*129;/ -hrd e3pere"ce o& perce!"g co"scous"ess. P"t( a"d
d!erst( both ob+ect!e/ u"t( " "depe"de"t ob+ects, d!erst( der!es &rom
ther relato"s to o"e a"other #what the( are for o"e a"other).
Q. 7128;*131;/ Summar( o& how th"gs look to us, tra"sto" to "e3t secto".
0ra"dom 16 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
Large herme"eutc challe"ges/
2) $" the ope""g "troductor( secto"s o& Dercepto", Hegel talks "d&&ere"tl( a"d
"tercha"geabl( about/
a) P"!ersalt(
b) Feterm"ate Negato" #o" m( read"g/ materal incompati$ility)
c) 8edato" #o" m( read"g/ materal inference)
Eor "sta"ce, &or #b)/ %-he wealth o& se"se*k"owledge belo"gs to percepto", "ot to
mmedate certa"t(, &or whch t was o"l( the source o& "sta"ces4 &or o"l( percepto"
co"ta"s "egato", that s, d&&ere"ce or ma"&old"ess, wth" ts ow" esse"ce,' 7112;.
He talks about %Mse"suous u"!ersalt(, or the immediate u"t( o& be"g a"d the
"egat!eM' 7115;. <"d &or #c)/ %7-;he u"!ersal s " ts smplct( a mediated
u"!ersalM' 7112;.
$5!e argued that #b) s the ke(, &u"dame"tal "oto". ?!e" that, o"e ca" show that #a) a"d
#c) are alread( mplctl( " pla(, b( the argume"ts $ o&&ered " dscuss"g Sense
ertainty. #Cuckl(/ be"g "compatble wth p s a u"!ersal that . a"d r ca" share, a"d
o"e ca" "troduce a" "&ere"tal relato" p entails . && e!er(th"g "compatble wth . s
"compatble wth p.)
3) N3pla" the restrcto" " Perception, to sense u"!ersals. $" )orce and
*nderstanding, ths restrcto" wll be l&ted, a"d purel( theoretical u"!ersals wll be
co"sdered as well. -he d&&ere"ce s that whle $oth must sta"d " "&ere"tal
relato"s #o" pa" o& !olat"g the de"al o& mmedac( o& content), se"se u"!ersals
also ha!e some "o"*"&ere"tal crcumsta"ces o& applcato" #" accorda"ce wth the
embrace o& the possblt( o& mmedac( o& origin.
7-;he se"se*eleme"t s stll prese"t, but "ot " the wa( t was supposed to be b(
mmedate certa"t(, "ot as the s"gular tem that s Hmea"t1, but as a u"!ersal, or as that
whch wll be determ"ed as a property. 78 113;
>) N3pla""g the !ew about the relato" betwee" unity #de"tt() a"d diversity
#d&&ere"ce), " relato" to determinateness/ -he dscusso" o& the wa( " whch
de"tt( ca" depe"d o" d&&ere"ce, u"t( o" multplct(, must take accou"t o&/
a) the wa( the de"tt( o& o"e propert( co"ssts " ts determ"ate relato" to other
propertes #ts "tra*categoral others), whch t e3cludes a"d #so) e"tals, a"d
b) the wa( the de"tt( o& o"e ob+ect co"ssts " ts determ"ate relato" to
propertes #ts "ter*categoral others), "amel( the o"es that characterBe t
>
, a"d
c) the wa( the de"tt( o& o"e ob+ect co"ssts " ts determ"ate relato" to other
ob+ects #ts "tracategoral others).
So we ha!e " #a) the "tracategoral determ"ate other"ess relat"g propertes to
propertes, " #b) the "tercategoral determ"ate other"ess relat"g propertes a"d
ob+ects, a"d " #c) the "tracategoral determ"ate other"ess relat"g ob+ects to ob+ects.
-he select!e rehearsal o& the e3pere"ce o& perce!"g co"scous"ess that s prese"ted
" the e3posto" o& the three dalectcs o& percepto" s to show that each strateg( &or
>
0ut ther de"tt( presupposes that o& others that are related to t " wa( #a), t s ths relato", Hegel
clams, that s made e3plct " e3pla"ato". <s such, t s the 5"!erted world5 mplct " appeara"ce, .e. t
s what appears to us. $mmedac( s a" esse"tal aspect o& t, but t s "ot a"d could "ot be merely
mmedate.
0ra"dom 19 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
co"stru"g determinately co"te"t&ul ob+ects a"d propertes accord"g to a model o&
independence &als to do +ustce to o"e or more o& these wa(s " whch
determ"ate"ess "!ol!es relato"s to a multplct( o& others. -he dalectc u"&olds as
a seres o& strateges attempt"g the reco"clato", k"ow" to us but "ot to perceptual
co"scous"ess to be mpossble, o& determ"ate"ess wth "depe"de"ce. <lo"g the
wa( d&&ere"t eleme"ts o& co"scous"ess or k"owledge are de"t&ed as the source or
authort( respo"sble &or u"&("g a"d dst"gush"g the determ"ate ob+ects a"d
propertes.
0ut the ma" po"t s that o"e wll never buld ge"u"e determinateness out o&
mutuall( independent, a"tecede"tl( "tellgble pr"cples o& diversity a"d unity. )"e
must go the other wa( arou"d, a"d derive or a$stract our u"dersta"d"g o& d!erst(
a"d u"t( &rom our u"dersta"d"g o& determ"ate"ess.
5) Holsm / )"e po"t made earl( s wth the de"al o& a k"d o& atomsm, o"e wa( "
whch o"e mght tr( to u"dersta"d co"ceptual co"te"t as mmedate. $& the identity o&
a determ"ate co"te"t co"ssts " #or has as a" esse"tal &eature) ts determ"ate
differences &rom a"d e3cluso"s o& other co"te"ts, the" a certa" k"d o& holsm about
such co"te"ts results. Here are some passages/
0e"g, howe!er, s a u"!ersal " !rtue o& ts ha!"g medato" or the "egat!e wth"
t4 whe" t expresses ths " ts mmedac( t s a differentiated, determinate propert(.
<s a result many such propertes are establshed smulta"eousl(, o"e be"g the
"egat!e o& a"other.
7these determ"aces; are e3pressed " the smplct( o& the u"!ersal.. 7113;
)" accou"t o& the universality o& the propert(, $ must rather take the ob+ect!e esse"ce
to be o" the whole a community
$ "ow perce!e the propert( to be determinate, opposed to a"other a"d e3clud"g t.
7119;
-he( are determ"ate propertes " t o"l( because the( are a pluralt( o& recprocall(
sel&*d&&ere"tat"g eleme"ts. 7120;
-hs determ"ate"ess, whch co"sttutes the esse"tal character o& the -h"g a"d
dst"gushes t &rom all others, s "ow de&"ed " such a wa( that the -h"g s thereb(
" opposto" to other -h"gs, but s supposed to preser!e ts "depe"de"ce " ths
opposto". 7125;
Erom a se"suous be"g t tur"ed "to a u"!ersal4 but ths u"!ersal, s"ce t originates
in the sensuous, s esse"tall( conditioned b( t, a"d he"ce s "ot trul( a sel&*de"tcal
u"!ersalt( at all, but o"e afflicted with an opposition4 &or ths reaso" the u"!ersalt(
splts "to the e3tremes o& s"gular "d!dualt( a"d u"!ersalt(, "to the )"e o& the
propertes a"d the <lso o& the 5&ree matters5. 712:;
7Notce that ths opposto" #N"tgege"setBu"g) s here sad to a&&lct th"gs $ecause o&
the "!ol!eme"t o& se"suous mmedac(. -hs s what dr!es the process o&
e3pere"ce, a"d so s what g!es partcular shape to the mot!e &orce o& "egat!t( "
dr!"g the process o& e3pere"ce.;
6) Sa("g how to get &rom Sense ertainty to Perception, that s, &rom &eature*plac"g to
ob+ect*propert(. -hs re.ures e3pla""g the relato" betwee" o$#ects a"d properties,
a"d the sg"&ca"ce &or that relato" o& negation.
0ra"dom 18 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
9) -he dscusso" o& Sense ertainty #" m( "otes) rases the ssue o& +ust where " hs
te3t Hegel e3plctl( clams that materal incompati$ilities, or strong d&&ere"ces, are
re.ured &or determ"ate"ess, a"d "ot +ust mere d&&ere"ces, or wea! o"es. $ po"ted
to a &ew uses o& 5N"tgege"setBu"g5, but could"5t sa( a lot. -he te3ts "eeded are " the
Perception secto", a"d there are lots o& them. $t s very e3plct " 711>;. &oth the
dea o& determinate negation, as a co"dto" o& determinateness, a"d the dea o&
experience, a process/ two sdes o& o"e co" #s"ce determ"ate "egato" matters
o"l( " the co"te3t o& e3pere"ce, whch s dr!e" o"l( b( that structure)Gare to be
elaborated out o& the phenomenon o& mak"g k"owledge clams, o& tak"g th"gs to be
some wa(. #-hat s where the Introduction le&t us.) Ae are u"pack"g what s
mplct " the "oto" o& determinately contentful #se"se) experience. Ae are
pursu"g, a&ter all, the Science of the Experience of onsciousness,
8) $" 711>; we read/
U...& the ma"( determ"ate propertes were strctl( "d&&ere"t 7glechgVltg; to o"e
a"other, & the( were smpl( a"d solel( sel&*related, the( would "ot be determ"ate4 &or
the( are o"l( determ"ate " so &ar as the( differentiate themsel!es &rom o"e a"other 7se
sch u"terschede";, a"d relate themsel!es to others as to ther oppostes 7als
e"tgege"gesetBte;.
Wet4 as thus opposed 7N"tgege"gesetBu"g; to o"e a"other the( ca""ot be together " the
smple u"t( o& ther medum, whch s +ust as esse"tal to them as "egato"4 the
d&&ere"tato" 7P"terschedu"g; o& the propertes, "so&ar as t s...e3clus!e
7ausschleOe"de;, each propert( "egat"g the others, thus &alls outsde o& ths smple
medum.U
Here we ha!e !er( clearl( the clam that determ"ate"ess depe"ds o" a k"d o& d&&ere"ce
stro"ger tha" mere #U"d&&ere"tU) d&&ere"ceGo"e that s exclusive, that "!ol!es
opposition. Eurther, t s +ust the 5"egat!t(5 o& the co"te"t o& determ"ate propertes "
ths se"se that re.ures #presupposes) that the( are assocated wth o$#ects as bearers, that
s, wth a u"t( or o"e, "ot +ust a" "d&&ere"t 5also5 #e.g., a &eature*plac"g o"e). 711>;
co"t"ues/
U-he )"e s the moment of negation4 t s tsel& .ute smpl( a relato" o& sel& to sel& a"d t
e3cludes a"other4 a"d t s that b( whch 5th"ghood5 s determ"ed as a -h"g.
Negato" s "here"t " a propert( as a determinateness whch s mmedatel( o"e wth
the mmedac( o& be"g, a" mmedac( whch, through ths u"t( wth "egato", s
u"!ersalt(. <s a )"e, howe!er, the determ"ate"ess s set &ree &rom ths u"t( wth ts
opposte, a"d e3sts " a"d &or tsel&.U
:) 0ut the wa( the accou"t o& ob+ects=propertes s supposed to work s made clear here/
...these diverse aspects...are specifically determined. Ahte s whte o"l( " opposto" to
black, a"d so o", a"d the -h"g s a )"e precsel( b( be"g opposed to others. 0ut t s
"ot as a )"e that t e3cludes others &rom tsel&...t s through ts determinateness that the
th"g e3cludes others. -h"gs are there&ore " a"d &or themsel!es determ"ate4 the( ha!e
propertes b( whch the( dst"gush themsel!es &rom others...7120;
S"ce propertes are de&"ed b( ther determ"ate "egato"s, Hegel sa(s that ob+ects are
de&"ed as the "egato" o& these "egato"s. Eor ob+ects, as the pr"cples o& group"g
"compatblt(*de&"ed propertes, ca""ot themsel!es sta"d " "compatblt( relato"s.
-hs last s a lesso" Hegel lear"ed &rom <rstotle, who &rst argued that propertes are
0ra"dom 1: 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
what ha!e oppostes, substa"ces what do "ot. Eor the opposte or abstract "egato" o& a
propert( s a propert( that characterBes +ust those ob+ects that the &rst does "ot. 0ot-red
s true o& +ust those th"gs that red s "ot true o&. $" terms o& determ"ate "egato", two
propertes are "compatble " case "o ob+ect ca" ha!e both o& them. -he opposte or
abstract "egato" o& a" ob+ect, s(mmetrcall(, would be a" ob+ect that e3hbts +ust the
propertes that are "ot e3hbted b( the &rst. $" terms o& determ"ate "egato", two
ob+ects would be "compatble +ust " case there s "o propert( that the( both e3hbt. 0ut
these latter descrpto"s do"5t pck out a"( relato"s betwee" actual ob+ects. ?!e" a"(
two ob+ects there wll be some thrd ob+ect that "ether s de"tcal to, a"d he"ce a
propert( that the( share. <lmost a"( two ob+ect share the propert( o& "ot be"g de"tcal
to the "umber 3. <"d clearl( & the( do"5t share that propert(, the" t wll be eas( to
co"struct a"other propert( that the( do share. $& propertes do come " "compatblt(
classes #or ha!e oppostes or abstract "egato"s), the" ob+ects ca""ot. Derce!"g
co"scous"ess, a"d Hegel, wll tur" ths arou"d a"d define propertes as the compo"e"ts
o& &acts that come " "compatblt( classes, a"d ob+ects as the compleme"tar(
compo"e"ts that do "ot, but ser!e merel( to group the &ormer k"d "to the classes
rele!a"t to assessme"ts o& "compatblt(. -hus the model o& determ"ate "egato" as
"compatblt( lets us u"dersta"d what Hegel mea"s b( sa("g that the ob+ect s the
"egato" o& the "egato", a"d wh( he would th"k that mporta"t.
10) Hegel1s &u"dame"tal clam " ths secto", as $ u"dersta"d hm, s the" that recogni*ing
this distinction between two kinds of distinction)between mere difference and
e(clusi#e difference)is equivalent to grasping the concept of an object which
e(hibits a property, or a particular that falls under a uni#ersal. -hus, properl(
u"derstood, the co"cept o& determinate negation mplctl( br"gs wth t the co"cept o&
the relato"s betwee" universals a"d the particulars that &all u"der them.
11) P"!ersals are pr"cples o& u"t( amo"g partculars, " the se"se that the( br"g together
all the ob+ects that e3hbt o"e propert(. Dartculars are pr"cples o& u"t( amo"g
u"!ersals, " the se"se that the( br"g together all the propertes e3hbted b( o"e ob+ect.
:rasping the larger unity made up by these two different sorts of unity is e$ui#alent
to grasping the concepts of object and property, particular and uni#ersal%
12)
13) -he ke( to argu"g that the structure o& ob+ects*a"d*propertes s alread( mplct " that
o& &eature*plac"g talk wth &eatures e3hbt"g both weak a"d stro"g d&&ere"ces s/
a) -he order o& e3pla"ato"/ ) de"tt( o& propertes as ther weak a"d stro"g
d&&ere"ces &rom o"e a"other, ) dst"gush"g them re.ures ob+ects as u"ts o&
accou"t, he"ce the relato" betwee" ob+ects a"d propertes s also esse"tal to the
de"tt( o& propertes, ) de"tt( o& ob+ects depe"ds o" ther assocated
propertes.
b) -he "tal s(mmetr( betwee" ob+ects a"d propertes s that each propert( s
assocated wth ma"( ob+ects #those that e3hbt t), a"d each ob+ect s assocated
wth ma"( propertes #those t e3hbts).
c) 0ut the s(mmetr( s broke" because propertes ha!e compleme"ts, a"d ob+ects
do "ot.
0ra"dom 20 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
d) $" ths regard, ob+ects a"d propertes are themsel!es oppostes #ha!e stro"gl(
d&&ere"t propertes o& "ot ha!"g a"d ha!"g compleme"ts). -hs s the se"se "
whch the ob+ect s the "egato" o& the "egato" o& the propert(.
e) -he as(mmetr( s the result o& the &act that ob+ects do not sta"d to other ob+ects "
two k"ds o& relato", correspo"d"g to weak a"d stro"g d&&ere"ce. -here s
"oth"g correspo"d"g to weak d&&ere"ce betwee" them. (ny two ob+ects ha!e
propertes that are stro"gl( d&&ere"t #"compatble), e!e" & +ust de"tt(
propertes. <"d the( wll ha!e some that are merel( d&&ere"t. -hs s a
co"se.ue"ce o& ob+ects ser!"g as u"ts o& accou"t, sort"g relato"s amo"g
propertes "to merel( a"d stro"gl( d&&ere"t.
1>) So the o!erall clam s that the re.ureme"t o& the determ"ate"ess o& e!e" &eature*
plac"g &orms o& the del!era"ces o& mmedac( mplctl( re.ures us to dst"gush two
sorts o& dst"cto" #eptomBed b( the relato"s betwee" %$t s &"e,' a"d %$t s da(,' o"
the sde o& weak d&&ere"ce, a"d %$t s &"e,' a"d %$t s ra""g,' o" the sde o& stro"g
d&&ere"ce). <"d mak"g that dst"cto" tur"s out to be e.u!ale"t to the &ull categoral
structure o& ob+ects a"d propertes, that s, partculars a"d u"!ersals. -he pcture s the"/
F r o m S e n s e C e r t a i n t y t o P e r c e p t i o n
+ o " t l ( " e c e s s a r ( c o " d t o "
s u & & c e " t c o " d t o "
S e " s e 2 e r t a " t ( 1
P " s t r u c t u r e d & e a t u r e * p l a c " g
c o " c e p t o " o & d e l ! e r a " c e s o &
m m e d a c (
2 o g " t ! e s g " & c a " c e
r e . u r e s d e t e r m " a t e " e s s .
F e t e r m " a t e " e s s r e . u r e s
d s t " c t o " b e t w e e "
s t r o n g # e 3 c l u s ! e )
a " d
w e a k # m e r e ) d & & e r e " c e s .
D e r c e p t o " /
D a r t c u l a r * u " ! e r s a l c a t e g o r a l
s t r u c t u r e o & d e " t t e s c o " s s t " g
" d & & e r e " c e s
" e c e s s a r ( c o " d t o "
" e c e s s a r ( c o " d t o "
$ " t r a c a t e g o r a l
d e t e r m " a t e
d & & e r e " c e o &
p r o p e r t e s & r o m
p r o p e r t e s
$ " t e r c a t e g o r a l
d e t e r m " a t e
d & & e r e " c e o &
p r o p e r t e s & r o m
o b + e c t s
$ " t r a c a t e g o r a l
d e t e r m " a t e
d & & e r e " c e o &
o b + e c t s
& r o m
o b + e c t s
15) N3pla""g how error e"ters the stor(. #So, wh( the subttle o& the chapter s U-he -h"g
a"d Fecepto" 7-auschu"g;.)
16) )& these, the last s the hardest o"e. -hs s where the mporta"ce o& the dst"cto"
betwee" change of mind a"d change of o$#ect e"tersGa"d the &rst place we see the
"teracto" a"d mutual presupposto" o& "compatblt( o& sub+ect!e commitments #"
0ra"dom 21 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
the same sub+ect) a"d "compatblt( o& ob+ect!e properties #" the same ob+ect), that s
the d&&ere"t a"d compleme"tar( wa(s sub+ects a"d ob+ects 5repel5 or e3clude materal
"compatbltes #determ"ate "egato"s).
19) -he crucal mo!e, $ clam, s dst"gush"g betwee" change of mind, a"d change of
o$#ect, whch s what $ "eed to do to ha!e a "oto" o& error Gc&. ) Introduction, ) ttle
o& Perception secto". Eor that "oto" "eeds me to be able to hold onto a stuato", a"d
ha!e a"other !ew of it #de re), as opposed to +ust e3pere"c"g a different stuato",
whch does"5t mea" $ was wro"g about the &rst. -hs "oto" o& be"g wrong re.ures
$oth a) determ"ate "egato" a"d b) hold"g o"to th"gsG.e. t re.ures both the
eleme"ts elaborated " Sense ertainty, o" m( tell"g. )"e "eeds strong d&&ere"ce, "ot
+ust wea! d&&ere"ce, Eor error re.ures the cha"ge &rom it5s be"g #take" to be) red a"d
it5s be"g #take" to be) gree", "ot +ust the d&&ere"ce betwee" ts be"g whte a"d ts be"g
cubcal, s"ce t ca" be $oth wthout there be"g a" error.
18) 8o!"g &rom Sense ertainty to Perception "!ol!es tak"g o" board the possblt(
o& error. -hs arses &rom the ack"owledgeme"t o& the applcablt( o& determinate
universals, s"ce these represe"t d&&ere"t, a"d pote"tall( compet"g sources o&
authority &or clams, allow"g the possblt( that some clam o"e &"ds o"esel& wth
mmedatel( wll ha!e to be g!e" up #.e. e"dorseme"t o& t wthdraw") or treated as
a" error. So a bg .uesto" s what this tra"sto" has to do wth #1) a"d #2). <
correspo"d"g ssue arses &or the tra"sto" &rom Perception to )orce and
*nderstanding. -here we mo!e &rom sensuous or immediate universality to
u"co"dto"ed or purel( medated u"!ersalt(/ &rom obser!ato"al co"cepts #whch,
o& course, must also ha!e "&ere"tal uses, but all o& whch also ha!e non"&ere"tal
crcumsta"ces o& approprate applcato") to theoretcal co"cepts #whch ha!e o"l(
"&ere"tal crcumsta"ces o& approprate applcato"). 0ut we should ask/ what does
ths mo!e ha!e to do wth the holism modeled o" the &eld o& &orces, whch s the
""o!ato" " )* co"cer""g the relato" betwee" u"t( a"d d!erst( #whch tsel&
arses out o& the &"al mo!eme"t " the e3pere"ce o& Perception, " whch d!erst( s
u"derstood " terms o& relato"s o& ob+ects to ob+ects #each o& whose de"tt( s to be
u"derstood " terms o& the d!erse propertes that are so u"derstood),
1:) )!erarch"g these herme"eutc challe"ges s the challe"ge o& e3pla""g the relato"
betwee" these stra"ds that ru" through the chapter.
-he -hree dalectcs.
20) -he dalectcs are dr!e" b( locat"g responsi$ility for d!erst( or u"t( " d&&ere"t
places. Hegel "!okes ths b( us"g the phrase U"mmt #se) au& schU #takes t upo"
tsel&, takes t up), " 7118;, 7120;, 7122;, a"d 7131;.
21) Daragraph 7119; o&&ers a" e3posto" o& the &rst set o& e3pere"ces as progress"g lke
ths/
a) -he start"g po"t/
-he ob+ect whch $ apprehe"d prese"ts tsel& purel( as a )"e....
0ra"dom 22 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
7Notce here the use o& 5$5 to "dcate the po"t o& !ew o& the "atural co"scous"ess that s
a phe"ome"o", b( co"trast to the 5we5 that "dcates the po"t o& !ew o& the
phe"ome"ologcal co"scous"ess &or whch #or whom) t s a phe"ome"o" #to whch t
appears).; -hs 5)"e5 s a partcular that ca" be pcked out b( a -hs.
b) -he &rst mo!e/
...but $ also perce!e " t a propert( whch s universal, a"d whch thereb(
tra"sce"ds the s"gulart( 7o& the ob+ect;.
6ecog"B"g ths u"!ersal eleme"t s the &ou"d"g a"d de&""g "sght o& perce!"g
co"scous"ess, a"d t s the e3pere"ce o& the u"truth o& mere partculart( as a co"cepto"
o& the ob+ect or co"te"t o& emprcal k"owledge.
)" accou"t o& the universality o& the propert(, $ must rather take the ob+ect!e
esse"ce to be o" the whole a community.
-hat s, as a repeata$le t s what s " pr"cple commo" to a !aret( o& instances.
7Derhaps a "ote hereGor elsewhereGo" wh( t s not harmless to cod&( ths dst"cto"
" terms o& Ht(pe1=Htoke".1; $t s what u"&es that multplct( o& "sta"ces. Hegel s here
&oreshadow"g the !ew that wll emerge e!e"tuall( " the e3posto", accord"g to whch
the ke( to u"dersta"d"g what we are do"g whe" we appl( a u"!ersal to a partcular
"sta"ce #lke appl("g a rule to a partcular case) s to be &ou"d " the wa( " whch
Sprt, as a commu"t( o& "d!dual sel&*co"scous"esses, s s("thesBed &rom merel(
partcular co"scous"esses b( mutual recog"to". 72&. (So% 2hapter -wo %Some
Dragmatst -hemesM';
c) -he seco"d mo!e/
$ "ow &urther perce!e the propert( to be determinate, opposed to a"other a"d
e3clud"g t.
-hs shows that t was "correct to th"k o& the propert( merel( as unifying ts "sta"ces.
$t also esse"tall( e3cludes other propertes. -he co"te"t assocated wth a se"se
u"!ersal determ"es "ot o"l( what "sta"ces t s correctl( appled to #the proper
crcumsta"ces o& applcato") but also what the correct sg"&ca"ce o& such applcato" s
#the proper co"se.ue"ces o& applcato"), " partcular the other u"!ersals t precludes or
&orbds me &rom appl("g. <ccord"gl( at ths stage the determ"ate"ess o& what s
perce!ed s u"derstood to co"sst " the wa( a se"se u"!ersal or obser!able propert(
d&&ere"tates tsel& &rom a multiplicity o& others, whch t e3cludes or co"trasts wth. -hs
co"cepto" s "ot stable ether, howe!er.
5

d) -he thrd mo!e/
$" the broke" up )"e $ &"d ma"( such propertes whch do "ot a&&ect o"e a"other
but are mutuall( "d&&ere"t. -here&ore $ dd "ot perce!e the ob+ect correctl(
whe" $ apprehe"ded t as e3clus!e....
$t was realBed at the pre!ous stage that each propert( "sta"tated b( a partcular ob+ect
excludes ts "sta"tato" o& others. Now t s "otced that each partcular ob+ect also
includes ma"( such e3clud"g propertes.
5
-hs a"d smlar tra"sto"s should "ot be take" to be "!ested wth a"( "atural, alethc modal "ecesst(.
<"( partcular co"scous"ess ca" &al to progress &rom o"e stage to the "e3t, & t &als to "otce or realBe
the shortcom"gs o& ts prese"t co"cepto". 0ut at each stage a" "sght s a!alable, what s mplct " the
co"cepto" "*tsel& ca" become e3plct &or co"scous"ess #ether the 5$5 or the 5we5), a"d such a realBato"
s e3press!el( progress!e. So the "ecesst( s "ormat!e/ what o"e ought to co"clude, the lesso" o"e
ought to lear" #" order to be mo!"g &orward).
0ra"dom 23 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
...so "ow t 7the ob+ect; s a u"!ersal common medium, " whch ma"( propertes
are prese"t as se"suous universalities, each e3st"g o" ts ow" accou"t a"d, as
determinate, e3clud"g the others.
0ut here the dema"ds that the propertes " .uesto" $oth be independent o& ther
"sta"tato" b( partcular ob+ects a"d o& other propertes and be determ"ate collde.
S"ce
...o"l( whe" t belo"gs to a )"e s t a propert(, a"d o"l( " relato" to others s t
determ"ate,
& those relato"s are g"ored, as dema"ded b( the re.ureme"t o& "depe"de"ce "tegral
to perce!"g co"scous"ess5 co"cepto" o& the authort( o& mmedac(,
t rema"s merel( sensuous $eing " ge"eral, s"ce t "o lo"ger possesses the
character o& "egat!t(.
<s "determ"ate, percepto" has bee" robbed o& co"te"t. 6ealB"g ths embarks us o" a
"ew phase o& the de!elopme"t possble &or perce!"g co"scous"ess.
22) -he second strategy tred out b( percepto", " the &ace o& the &alure o& the &rst, s to
assg" a role to co"scous"ess " the reco"clato" o& determ"ate"ess a"d auto"om(.
#-hs strateg( "!okes a gra" o& Hegel5s e!e"tual truth, s"ce t wll emerge that o"l(
u"dersta"d"g the co"sttuto" o& sel&*co"scous"ess ca" resol!e the problem o& the
reco"clato" o& "depe"de"ce a"d the depe"de"ce whch s determ"ate"ess.)
6espo"sblt( &or dst"gush"g a multplct( o& propertes a"d u"&("g them " a"
ob+ect s to be splt betwee" the k"ow" ob+ect a"d the k"ow"g sub+ect, betwee" the
truth a"d the certa"t( o& k"owledge. -he "sght that s de!eloped at ths stage s that
the authort( percepto" der!es &rom mmedac( must be u"derstood as compatble
wth the e3ste"ce o& perceptual error. Ahere se"se certa"t(, " the mddle dalectc
o& ts three part e3posto" took the truth o& emprcal k"owledge to le " tsel& a"d ts
mmedate 8e"u"g, here
...co"scous"ess recog"Bes that t s the untruth occurr"g " percepto"
that &alls wth" t...7118;
Derceptual tak"gs ca" be mistak"gs. <"d
co"scous"ess at o"ce recog"Bes ths aspect as ts ow" a"d takes
respo"sblt( &or t. 7118;
$t Udst"gushes ts apprehe"so" o& the truth &rom the u"truth o& percepto"U, b(
dst"gush"g ts mmedate, pre+udgeme"tal "o""&ere"tal respo"se #whch so &ar +ust s
someth"g that happe"s**mak"g "o clams t ca" make "o errors), the Uapprehe"so"U,
&rom the subse.ue"t +udgeme"t or endorsement o& a certa" co"te"t as a" e3presso" o&
that mmedate respo"s!e dsposto".
6

2o"scous"ess "o lo"ger merel( perce!es, but s also co"scous o& ts
re&lecto" "to tsel&, a"d separates ths &rom smple apprehe"so" proper.
7118;
)bser!"g that someth"g s the case, &or "sta"ce that ths salt s tart, s "ot +ust a matter
o& e3ercs"g a relable capact( d&&ere"tall( to respo"d to the e"!ro"me"t, &or "sta"ce
as salt or tart. $t also "!ol!es commtme"t to a certa" determ"atel( co"te"t&ul
characterBato" o& what s be"g respo"ded to. -he co"te"t&ul"ess o& that commtme"t
depe"ds " part o" the wa( t prohbts a"d dema"ds other co"te"t&ul commtme"ts. 0ut
6
-hs po"t s a ma+or theme o& Sellars5 UNmprcsm a"d the Dhlosoph( o& 8"dU.
0ra"dom 2> 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
+ust " ths artculato" b( "compatblt( a"d "&ere"ce #Umedato"U) les the possblt(
o& error. Eor o"e ma( &"d o"esel& perceptuall(, that s "o""&ere"tall(, commtted to
+ust some o& those co"te"ts commtme"t to whch was precluded b( the other
obser!ato". -he stck " the water loo!s be"t but feels straght. <t ths stage " the
de!elopme"t o& percepto", perce!"g co"scous"ess ack"owledges ts ow"
respo"sblt( &or such predcame"ts. Erom here o" out the act!t( o& +udg"g or
e"dors"g s recog"Bed as esse"tal to percepto".
23) )" the &rst tr(, the th"g s co"ce!ed o& as " tsel& a u"t(, a"d as o"l( appear"g as
a multplct( &or perce!"g co"scous"ess. -wo remarks ma( be made about ths
sub-strategy.
a. Erst, all .ualtes are treated as seco"dar( .ualtes, as ars"g o"l( out o&
the "teracto" o& the th"g wth co"scous"ess.
b. Seco"d, s"ce these propertes owe ther de"tt( a"d "d!duato" to ther
relato" to co"scous"ess, there s "o room &or a gap betwee" what
propertes the ob+ects ha!e " truth a"d what propertes the( ha!e &or
co"scous"ess. -ruth s de&"ed " terms o& certa"t(, realt( as
multplct( " terms o& appeara"ce. -he propertes are "ot e!e" to be
thought o& as "sta"ced b( UwhteU, but rather b( Ulooks whte to me "owU.
c. Notce that " treat"g co"scous"ess as the medum o& multplct(, the
medum o& the UalsoU o& the propertes, @a"t5s !ew o& the "tellect as
e3clus!el( s("thetc s tur"ed o" ts head. S"ce the th"g pro!des real
u"t( to the mere UalsoU o& co"scous"ess, co"scous"ess ca" co"ce!e the
dst"cto" betwee" the Uob+ect $NS)E<6 as t s whteU a"d the Uob+ect
$NS)E<6 as t s sweetU as due to tsel&. Eor determ"ate"ess, Ulooks red
to me "owU a"d Ulooks whte to me "owU must e3clude o"e a"other #be
"compatble). 0ut the grou"d o& ther dst"ct"ess s "ot here co"ce!ed
as be"g " the ob+ect, but " the sub+ect. So the "compatbltes re.uste
&or determ"ate"ess would be merel( sub+ect!e, a"d the determ"ate"ess
accord"gl( also merel( sub+ect!e.
2>) $& the source o& the "compatbltes dst"gush"g propertes a"d he"ce mak"g
ob+ects determ"ate s " co"scous"ess, the" the k"owledge whch co"scous"ess has
o& o"e perceptual &act s "ot "depe"de"t o& the k"owledge t has o& others.
6egarded as e3st"g each &or tsel& " the u"!ersal medum, these d!erse
aspects &or whch co"scous"ess accepts respo"sblt( are spec&call(
determ"ed. Ahte s whte o"l( " opposto" to black...a"d the -h"g s a
)"e precsel( b( be"g opposed to others. 7120;
-he co"cepto"s o& independence a"d determinateness wll o"ce aga" be e3pere"ced as
"compatble, so ths strateg( wll "ot work, a"d the contrary sub-strategy s pursued. $t
arses out o& the &rst b( progress!e realBato"s #recou"ted at the e"d o& 7120;),
beg"""g &rom the th"g co"ce!ed o& as "depe"de"t a"d what t s "*tsel&/
-he -h"g s what s true...a"d what s " t s there as the -h"g5s esse"ce
a"d "ot o" accou"t o& other th"gs.
-hs s a" e3presso" o& the co"cepto" o& what s perce!ed as "depe"de"t. -he &rst
realBato" s that
0ra"dom 25 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
...the propert( s the -h"g5s ow" propert( or determ"ate"ess " the -h"g
tsel&, the th"g has a "umber o& propertes,
so t s determ"ate. 0ut s"ce t ge"u"el( a"d o" ts ow" accou"t has these dst"ct
propertes " t, so
the -h"g s the <lso, or the universal medium " whch the ma"(
propertes subsst apart &rom o"e a"other, wthout touch"g or ca"cell"g
o"e a"other.
-he d!erst( o& propertes s accord"gl( take" to e3st " the th"g as t s " tsel&, that s
the th"g s treated as co"sst"g o& the UalsoU o& the propertes, a"d the u"t( o& those
propertes whch makes them all propertes o& one th"g s the work a"d respo"sblt( o&
co"scous"ess. -he pre!ous sub*strateg( was "om"alstc, " that "d!dual th"gs are
take" as e3st"g, a"d the group"g o& them "to !arous smlart( classes u"derstood as
the dst"gush"g o& repeatable propertes " the partcular th"gs s e"trel( the
co"trbuto" o& co"scous"ess. -hs sub*strateg( s "ow "!erted, a"d co"scous"ess
"stead o& sort"g th"gs "to co*properted classes, sorts propertes "to co*"sta"tato"
e.u!ale"ce classes. <ga" the determ"ate"ess o& th"gs seems reduced to mere
appeara"ce, a"d co"scous"ess must stll apprehe"d the "compatbltes whch re"der
the propertes ob+ect!el( determ"ate " order to apprehe"d those propertes a"d to
respect ther "compatbltes " sort"g them "to co*ob+ectual classes. So aga"
auto"om( o& k"owledge o& perceptual &acts s precluded.
25) -hese two !erso"s o& the seco"d strateg( &ell dow" " two wa(s. Erst, o& course,
determ"ate"ess a"d auto"om( o& co"te"ts a"d ob+ects are stll "compatble. Seco"d,
assg""g respo"sblt( &or ether o& the "ecessar( eleme"ts o& determ"ate"ess #u"t(
a"d multplct() to co"scous"ess robs the th"g o& real determ"ate"ess. S"ce
percepto" ca""ot apprecate the &rst d&&cult( wthout tur""g "to u"dersta"d"g, the
thrd a"d last &orm o& perceptual co"scous"ess attempts to a!od the seco"d d&&cult( b(
o"ce aga" putt"g both sdes o& determ"ate"ess "to the th"g rather tha" co"scous"ess.
-hs strateg( would smpl( repeat the !er( &rst &orm o& percepto", e3cept that someth"g
has bee" lear"ed &rom the seco"d stage. Eor the seco"d stage looked &or the grou"d o&
o"e o& u"t( a"d d!erst( " the ob+ect, a"d the other elsewhere. $t has "ow emerged that
t s a mstake to look &or the source o& the other " co"scous"ess, but the ge"eral dea o&
look"g elsewhere tha" " the ob+ect tsel& "eed "ot be dscarded because that specal case
dd"5t work out. So in the third stage both the elements which alternated between
being assigned to the thing and to consciousness are to be assigned to things, but
only one of them to the thing which is the thing characteri*ed by perceptual
properties. $" partcular, the th"g must " tsel& be take" to be a u"t(. -he d!erst(
whch makes t determ"ate must the" be a matter o& the relato"s whch that s"gle th"g
sta"ds " to other s"gle th"gs. 2o"sdered b( tsel&, the th"g s +ust what t s, but "
relato" to other th"gs t s whte, sweet, etc., completel( apart &rom how co"scous"ess
ma( take t to be. Ae ha!e progressed through mede!al "om"alsm a"d realsm about
u"!ersals to the doctr"e o& co"ceptualsm. Eor or " relato" to tsel& the th"g s o"e. $ts
d!erse propertes, the th"g $NS)E<6 as t s whte as dst"gushed &rom the th"g
$NS)E<6 as t s sweet, are a d!erst( correspo"d"g to the d!erst( o& other ob+ects t
s related to. $t s sweet or whte &or or " relato" to them.
0ra"dom 26 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
26) -he d&&cult( wth ths approach s that although the esse"ce o& the th"g s u"t( a"d ts
d!erse relato"s to other th"gs are u"esse"tal to t #"ot part o& what t s " tsel&),
"o"etheless t re.ures those u"esse"tal relato"s &or ts determ"ate"ess, a"d he"ce s
"ether "depe"de"t "or "depe"de"tl( k"owable as determ"ate.
-he th"g s demolshed b( the !er( determ"ate"ess that co"sttutes ts esse"ce
a"d ts be"g*&or*sel&...-he -h"g s posted as be"g &or tsel& or the absolute
"egato" o& all other"ess 7.e. as "depe"de"t;...0ut the -h"g has ts esse"tal
be"g 7.e. determ"ate"ess; " a"other -h"g. 7126;
<"d aga"/
0ut alo"g wth ths smple "ature the ob+ect s also to co"ta" d!erst( whch,
although necessary to t s "ot to co"sttute ts essential determ"ate"ess. 7129;
-hs s the &alure o& the thrd strateg(, whch puts both de"tt( a"d determ"ate
d&&ere"ce "to the "*tsel&, but d!des them betwee" d&&ere"t th"gs. -he lesso" we are
to lear" &rom all ths s that the re.ureme"t o& auto"om( o& k"owledge or o& ob+ect s
mstake" a"d must be dscarded " &a!or o& a subtler "oto" o& &reedom, whch
correspo"ds to "d!duals socall( s("thesBed out o& partculars a"d u"!ersals. -he
re.ureme"t o& determ"ate"ess wll be reta"ed. -he proper model o& partcular to
u"!ersal, o& u"t( " the d!erst( o& propertes wll &ollow the comb"ed lesso"s o& the
seco"d a"d thrd &orms o& perceptual co"scous"ess. P"t( or partculart( wll be a
matter o& relato" o& ob+ect to sel&, a"d d!erst( or u"!ersalt( wll be a matter o&
relato" to other ob+ects as " the thrd stage. 0ut, &ollow"g the seco"d stage, both the
ob+ect that s &or tsel& o"e a"d &or others d!erse, a"d the o"es that t s &or are co"ce!ed
o& as consciousnesses.
29) Derce!"g co"scous"ess admts o"l( the e3ste"ce o& se"se u"!ersals, a"d &or ths
reaso" ca""ot u"dersta"d what we u"dersta"d. Eor ts restrcto" to se"se u"!ersals s
e3pressed b( ts dema"d that the co"te"ts o& perce!"gs be auto"omous or independent
#a co"cepto" that s pathog"omc o& ale"ato", as we shall lear"), that s that the( be
graspable apart &rom a"( grasp or co"sderato" o& a"( other co"te"ts or relato"s to
a"(th"g that s "ot a co"te"t. -hs dema"d colldes wth the "escapable co"se.ue"ces
re.ured b( the determ"ate"ess o& the co"te"ts o& perce!"gs. Ahe" ths "depe"de"ce
re.ureme"t s rel".ushed, the tra"sto" s made to the le!el o& understanding
7Qersta"d;. Here the appare"t co"tradcto"s that arose b( co"ce!"g o& co"te"ts as
"depe"de"t, co"tradcto"s u"resol!able wth" the !ocabular( a"d dom characterstc
o& co"scous"ess whose sel&*co"cept s that o& perce!"g co"scous"ess, are resol!ed b(
postulat"g a" independent realt( beh"d se"suous appeara"ce, o" whch the whole o&
appeara"ce s co"ce!ed as dependent. -hs mo!e represe"ts progress " se!eral respects.
$t s "ow allowed that the determ"ate"ess o& u"!ersals re.ures ther relato" to a"d
medato" b( other u"!ersals that the( e3clude. So the co"cepto" o& u"!ersals as
"depe"de"t has bee" rel".ushed. Eurther, a"d as a result, the re.ureme"t o&
immediacy o& the u"!ersals, ther ha!"g to be sense u"!ersals, that s, "o"*"&ere"tall(
reportable, has bee" g!e" up as well. Now co"scous"ess ca" co"ce!e o& tsel& as
class&("g partculars u"der u"!ersals to whch ts o"l( access s "&ere"tal. So the
pcture o& the relato" betwee" co"scous"ess a"d what appears to t s "o lo"ger that o&
mmedate co"tact #Urubb"g the "ose o& the m"d " the mess o& the worldU). -hs wll
e!e"tuall( &lower "to the possblt( o& co"ce!"g thought as a mea"s o& access to how
0ra"dom 29 5=1>=201>
228361065.doc
th"gs are " themsel!es, rather tha" as "e!tabl( alter"g #as medum or "strume"t) a"d
so perhaps radcall( &als&("g what t prese"ts. <ga", the wa( s ope"ed to co"ce!"g o&
co"scous"ess as co"sst"g " other &orms o& +udgeme"t besdes the class&cator(, &or
"sta"ce the "&ere"ce*cod&("g co"dto"als a"d modall( .ual&ed lawlke u"!ersal
ge"eralBato"s that e3press "compatblt( a"d e"talme"t relato"s e3plctl( "
proposto"al &orm.
0ra"dom 28 5=1>=201>