Hegel Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by faminconnue

Hegel was primarily interested in the necessity of the develo­pment of consci­ous­ness, history, logic and philosophy
He also showed interest in Spinoza, and became acquainted with science through his works as a tutor

Hegel gives a more organised relation between the categories than Kant, and asks himself how the categories are related.

He claimed that categories are dogmatic when not researched and that they are developed by means of contra­diction
-> hence, we should unfold categories rather than reject them (as Kant did)

In short, logic has to be developed by looking at itself

According to Hegel, determ­ination happens because of self-d­ete­rmi­nation, which is then exceeded

In phenom­enology of spirit Hegels main focus is on consci­ous­ness, specif­ically the question "what are the necessary structures of consci­ous­nes­s?"
-> consci­ousness has a subjec­t-o­bject structure
-> self-c­ons­cio­usness has a subjec­t-s­ubject structure; this includes relati­onships of labour (e.g.?) and the spirit­/geist

According to Hegel, consci­ousness is necessary for immane­nt/­inh­erent self-d­eve­lopment

Hegel claims that contra­dic­tions happen when categories are applied to themselves that are “too abstract”
The contra­dic­tions lead to new categories that are conseq­uences of applying the first category to itself
The new category needs the old category and thus cannot stand on its own
This tension leads to a new and more concrete category
-> both old categories and thus have disapp­eared as stinging on their own
-> both old categories are saved in the new category
The cycle repeats

According to Hegel the first category is partic­ularity also called "­thi­s"
-> "­thi­s" is the first category because it is free of judgement (i.e. hold a pen and say "­there is this" implies establ­ished categories and hence no judgement about it can exist)
-> assump­tions can be mislea­ding, so the only proper start is to have no structure except for the giveness of consci­ous­ness: "­thi­s" contains no assump­tions of the structure of experience and hence is the most particular

These “thises” can be different from each other but not in the way that they are a “this” and their “thisness”

"­thi­s" is both:
- partic­ular, in the sense that it is a "­thi­s"
- univer­sal­/ge­neral, in the sense that it is not the other "­thi­s"

"­thi­s" with regard to the object, should be indepe­ndent of the circum­stances of knowab­ility and completely general

"­thi­s" with regard to the subject, should be indepe­ndent of the circum­stances of the world and completely general


the develo­pment of "­thi­s": *
Other other “this” are also not the other “this” -> Only by having all the different “not this” combined can we capture “this”

1)“This” needs to unify all the different “not this”
2)Other objects also have “not this”
3)Object with qualit­ies­/pl­urality and unity
4)This is still maintained in there!