Essay on Hegel and the Relation of Master and Servant

The entire subject of philosophy, according to Hegel, consists of the study of the history of the world and the creation of truth. When man first became aware of objects, he viewed everything in the context of death or negation. When the self encounters other people, its first reaction is to view them as objects and risk its life to kill them. After that comes the master/slave relationship, where certain people rise to the top of society and exercise control over others. Ironically, the slave actually has a more stable means of self-validation. The slave identifies with his work, which is never-ending, while the master identifies with his control over the slaves, which could end at a moment's notice. Another ideal, which we derive from Hegel, is that of "stoicism." Stoicism, defined as the recognition of the self as sovereign and independent. The individual tries to lead a self-contained life of reason but is still susceptible to the psychological residue of the master/slave relationship as well as nature's eternal mastery. After this stage comes skepticism, which is an extreme form of stoicism where the self becomes completely rational and destroys nature by doubting it. The self is still limited by the master/slave

Additionally, both Hegel and Nietzsche use the Master / Slave dichotomy to account for identity and difference in the relationship between the powerful subject and the weak object. Both thinkers see identity and morality emerging out of a relationship of conflict. Moreover, in both Hegel and Nietzsche’s narratives, there is a change in the structure of acknowledgment, where the antagonistic relationship allows one side to define itself by negating the other. Both thinkers find that negation is an integral part of identity formation. Hegel and Nietzsche both concur, in dialectical terms, ‘Being’ is represented by the ‘object’, or Master, and the ‘subject’, or Slave, is constantly in the process of ‘Becoming’. From these similarities, is that clear that both 19th century philosophers have made a massive impact on philosophical thought in todays day and age, despite their distinct

The war between a person and themselves is already known as one of the most complex battles a person will experience. This warfare deals with the conflict between one 's thoughts versus one’s action. For example; when

Derek Parfit's views on personal identity and the Ego and Bundle Theory are all summarized in his article “Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons”. In his article, Parfit explains the distinction between Ego theory and Bundle theory and provides several arguments against Ego Theory. Although it proves to be very difficult to believe the Bundle Theory, Parfit’s critique is convincing and well thought out.

Beginning with Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, is the critique of religion. He states that the basis of religious criticism is that “man makes religion; religion does not make man” (53). In a religious society man has lost himself in an abstraction, marveling in the very God he created, which he states is an “inverted world conscious” (53). By criticizing religion it allows man to regain reason and create his own reality rather than focusing on the abstract such as heaven. Once we have criticized religion and removed ourselves from the illusions of religion, the criticism will then lead into a progression of criticism leading into politics, “the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics” (54). Marx then leads in to the criticism of history, where criticism of the past will then bring us an understanding to better criticize the present, and

Hegel’s critique of Kant’s philosophy is quite prevalent throughout the unfolding of Hegel’s own dialectical philosophy. Several of Hegel’s critiques of Kant’s work can especially be seen in one of his earlier works, “The Phenomenology of Spirit.” This is particularly established once Hegel begins to undertake the developing of Spirit within his Phenomenology. Here, Hegel makes several attacks on Kantian philosophy principles, and at some of the foundations of Kant’s use of pure reason in philosophy. There are several passages within the section where Hegel gives criticism of Kant’s work; critiques that strike at the very heart of what Hegel himself is trying to elucidate through his own dialectic, while discounting one of the greatest German philosophers.

The question of the Other – the one different from yourself and those similar to yourself – is ideal for exploration within science fiction, which has always stretched the boundaries of what is possible and imaginable. The Other can be different from the Self in its sex, income, language, race, anatomy, etc., and Le Guin

For he enters his own experience as a self or individual, not directly or immediately, not by becoming a subject to himself, but only in so far as he first becomes an object to himself just as other individuals are objects to him or in his experience; and he becomes an object to himself only by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself within a social environment or context of experience and behavior in which both he and they are involved.

The reader sees that the Self and the Other appear to exist in an obligate symbiotic relationship, where both the Self and Other are dependent on each other for continued existence, and elucidates the reader on the interdependency of the Self and Other.

From this point, Hegel introduces the archetypes of the lord and the bondsman. The bondsman is the position that most of humanity occupies since most people are ultimately concerned for the struggle for bodily survival as a result of the profound fear of death and place that struggle as being central to existence and far more important than defending the integrity of the ego, an invisible concept which may not help them in their endeavors. Because they are easily manipulated by these external needs, men often fall under the power of other men, such as the lord and the bondsman loses sight of himself more as he begins to work for the lord. The problem of enslavement becomes much worse, especially if one’s sense of self is vastly different than the ‘other’s’ objective view of the self (since the self views the ‘other’ as an object). Although that seems to be the crux of the relationship, this working through fear is simply the first phase toward an independent self-consciousness.

     Two things can happen when we are required to base our definition of “self” on others.  One can take others’ ways of living and thinking, process them, and formulate his or her own definition, independent of anyone else.  Or, one can use the relationships he or she has with other people on which to base their own definition of self, thus making him or her dependent on those other people.  As young people, we learn and take in all we can through the world, our experiences, and relationships with other people.  From there, we grow and establish our own identities, our own “selves”, in response to those interactions with others.  This definition is continually growing and progressing as we evolve as people, interacting with different people in different environments and

In the stages leading up to self-consciousness, consciousness placed the locus of truth into that which it took to be other than itself. The particular and immediate being of the

Consciousness allows a person to recognize their existence, and subsequently, to form their essence. The

Freud said that the Ego is the mediator between the Id and Superego and the outside world. For the Ego to do its job, it has to delay the desires of the Id until it is socially acceptable to give the Id the needs. So our conscious-driven Ego is a balance of the Id and Superego, evening out our primal needs

When introducing the concept of self-consciousness, it can be very difficult for individuals to understand that there are many forms of self-consciousness. Many already have a definition in mind as soon as they hear the word self-consciousness. It is made up of many concepts because it isn’t just a cognitive state, rather, many cognitive states. The mind processes many things as opposed to just knowing things. Humans are capable of doing and desiring many things while self-evaluating and questioning oneself. Everyone is able to consider their own actions and to think about themselves. When thinking, humans are able to consider ideas and depictions regarding the self and others. Regarding oneself allows for evaluating self-worth in refinement to common social roles (Bermudez).