Brandom

Week 10: From Irony to Trust: Modernity and Beyond Stage One: Sittlichkeit, no modern subjectivity; Stage T o: !lienation, modern subjectivity; Stage Three: Sittlichkeit "in a ne #orm, com$atible ith subjectivity%, modern subjectivity "in a ne , sittlich #orm%& Sittlichkeit Alienation No Subjectivity Stage One ' Subjectivity Stage Three Stage T o

(uestion One: What e)actly is it that traditional #orms o# li#e got rong about us that modern #orms o# li#e get right* What have e gained* What is it that e have learned and incor$orated into our $ractices and institutions that makes us modern selves* What is the +rise o# subjectivity,* (uestion T o: What is $re-modern Sittlichkeit* (uestion Three: What is modern alienation* (uestion .our: Why did the advent o# modern subjectivity bring ith it alienation/that is, hy did these t o structures arise together* (uestion .ive: What is rong ith the idea o# pre-modern alienation* (uestion Si): 0o are e to understand Stage Three* Why does the insight into subjectivity not entail alienation* 0o can hat as $rogressive about the transition to modernity be $reserved, hile re-achieving Sittlichkeit* (uestion Seven: 1an a version o# the e)$ansive, heroic conce$tion o# agency be reconciled ith ackno ledging the rights o# intention and kno ledge*
! ll B & 1 &
234
474 434 674 634 574

534

T h a le s 2 3 6 -4 6 2 ! n i) a m a n d e r 2 1 1 -4 6 2

0 e r a c lit u s 4 5 4 - 6 7 4
! e sc h y lu s 4 3 4 - 6 4 2

S o $ h o c le s 6 8 2 - 6 0 2
9 u r i$ e d e s 6 : 0 - 6 0 2

So crates 6 2 8 -5 8 8

; la t o 6 3 : - 5 6 :

! r is t o t le 5 : 6 - 5 3 3

Brandom

+What observation kne as a given object in hich the sel# had no $art, is here a given custom <Sitte=&, <;> 621= ?unalienated s$irits trans$arent to themselves, stainless celestial #igures that $reserve in all their di##erences the unde#iled innocence and harmony o# their essential nature& The relationshi$ o# sel#-consciousness to them is e@ually sim$le and clear& They are, and nothing more; this is hat constitutes the a areness o# its relationshi$ to them& Thus, So$hoclesA !ntigone ackno ledges them as the un ritten and in#allible la o# the gods& They are not o# yesterday or today, but everlasting, Though here they came #rom, none o# us can tell& They are& B# B in@uire a#ter their origin and con#ine them to the $oint hence they arose, then B have transcended them; #or no it is B ho am the universal, and they are the conditioned and limited& B# they are su$$osed to be validated by my insight, then B have already denied their unshakeable, intrinsic being, and regard them as something hich, #or me, is $erha$s true, but also is $erha$s not true& 9thical dis$osition consists just in sticking stead#astly to hat is right, and abstaining #rom all attem$ts to move or shake it, or derive it& <;> 657= +?immediate?ethical consciousness hich kno s its duty and does it, and is bound u$ ith it as its o n nature&,<;> 487= 0o ever, although the .amily is immediately determined as an ethical being, it is ithin itsel# an ethical entity only so #ar as it is not the natural relationshi$ o# its members?this natural relationshi$ is just as much a s$iritual one, and it is only as a s$iritual entity that it is ethical? <T=he ethical $rinci$le must be $laced in the relation o# the individual member o# the .amily to the hole .amily as the Substance?<;> 643= <T=he t o se)es overcome their <merely= natural being and a$$ear in their ethical signi#icance, as diverse beings ho share bet een them the t o distinctions belonging to the ethical substance& These t o universal beings o# the ethical orld have, there#ore, their s$eci#ic individuality in naturally distinct sel#-consciousnesses, because the ethical S$irit is the immediate unity o# the substance ith sel#-consciousness/an immediacy hich a$$ears, there#ore, both #rom the side o# reality and o# di##erence, as the e)istence o# a natural di##erence&?Bt is no the s$eci#ic antithesis o# the t o se)es hose natural e)istence ac@uires at the same time the signi#icance o# their ethical determination& <648= +Cature, not the accident o# circumstances or choice, assigns one se) to one la , the other to the other la &, <;> 624= Thus, human la in its universal e)istence, that is, the community, in general is, in its setting itsel# into activity, the manliness o# the community and, in its actual activity, is the government, moving itsel# and sustaining itsel# by absorbing into itsel# the $articulariDation o# the $enates, that is, their sel#-su##icient individualiDation into di##erent #amilies over hich omen $reside, and by $reserving them as dissolved ithin its #luidityEs continuity& 0o ever, the #amily is in general at the same time its element and its universal activating ground is individual consciousness& Since the community gives itsel# enduring e)istence only by disru$ting #amilial ha$$iness and by dissolving sel#-consciousness into the universal, it creates an internal enemy for itself in what
3

Brandom

it su resses and what is at the same time essential to it !femininity in "eneral#$ Femininity % the community&s eternal irony / <erDeugt es sich an dem, as es unterdrFckt und as ihm Dugleich esentlich ist, an der Weiblichkeit Fberhau$t seinen inneren .eind& Giese - die ewi"e Ironie des 'emeinwesens= changes by intrigue the governmentEs universal $ur$ose into a $rivate end, trans#orms its universal activity into this determinate individualEs ork, and turns the stateEs universal $ro$erty to$sy-turvy into the #amilyEs $ossession and ornament& Bn this ay ( the feminine turns to ridicule the earnest wisdom of maturity( hich, being dead to individuality / to $leasure and consum$tion as ell as to actual activity / only thinks o# and is concerned #or the universal; she turns this mature isdom into an object o# ridicule #or immature, high-s$irited youths, and into an object o# contem$t #or their enthusiasm, and she elevates in general youthEs #orce into hat count as valid / elevating the son, born to the mother as her master, the brother as one in hom the sister #inds a man as an e@ual ith hersel#, and the youth through hom the daughter, #reed #rom her non-sel#-su##iciency, achieves the enjoyment and the di"nity of womanhood$ % The community( however( can only sustain itself by su ressin" this s irit of individuality; and because that s$irit is an essential moment, the community e@ually creates it by its re$ressive stance to ards it as a hostile $rinci$le& Cevertheless, since this $rinci$le, in se$arating itsel# #rom universal $ur$oses, is only evil, is ithin itsel# nothing, it ould be inca$able o# accom$lishing anything i# the community itsel# ere not to recogniDe the #orce o# youth "the manhood, hich, hile immature, is still subsumed under individuality% as the force o# the hole& .or the community is a $eo$le, it is itsel# individuality, and it is only essentially #or itself in that other individualities are for it, only in that it excludes these #rom itsel# and kno s itsel# to be inde$endent o# them& <674= Geath? is a state hich has been reached immediately, in the course o# Cature, not the result o# an action consciously done& The duty o# the member o# a .amily is on that account to add this as$ect, in order that the individualAs ultimate being, too, shall not belong solely to Cature and remain something irrational, but shall be something done, and the right o# consciousness be asserted in it& <;> 643= The #amily +interru$ts the ork o# Cature,, it kee$s a ay #rom the dead this dishonouring o# him by unconscious a$$etites and abstract entities, and $uts its o n action in their $lace&&&The .amily thereby makes him a member o# a community hich $revails over and holds under control the #orces o# $articular material elements and the lo er #orms o# li#e, hich sought to unloose themselves against him and to destroy him& <;> 643= Because, on the one hand, the ethical order essentially consists in this immediate #irmness o# decision, and #or that reason there is #or consciousness essentially only one la , hile, on the other hand, the ethical $o ers are real and e##ective in the sel# o# consciousness, these $o ers ac@uire the signi#icance o# e)cluding and o$$osing one another?& The ethical consciousness, because it is decisively #or one o# the t o $o ers, is essentially character; it does not acce$t that both have the same essential nature& .or this reason, the o$$osition bet een them a$$ears as an un#ortunate collision o# duty merely ith a reality hich $ossesses no rights o# its o n?& Since it sees right only on one side and rong on the other, that consciousness hich belongs to the divine la sees in the other side only the violence o# human ca$rice, hile that hich holds to human la sees in the other only the sel#- ill and disobedience o# the individual ho insists on being his o n authority& <;> 622= The rong hich can be in#licted on an individual in the ethical realm is sim$ly this, that something merely ha$$ens to him?the consciousness o# <those ho share= the blood o#
5

Brandom

the individual re$air this rong in such a ay that hat has sim$ly ha$$ened becomes rather a ork deliberately done?<;> 623= <S=el#-consciousness?learns through its o n act the contradiction o# those $o ers into hich the substance divided itsel# and their mutual do n#all, as ell as the contradiction bet een its kno ledge o# the ethical character o# its action, and hat is in its o n $ro$er nature ethical, and thus #inds its o n do n#all& Bn $oint o# #act, ho ever, the ethical substance has develo$ed through this $rocess into actual sel#-consciousness; in other ords, this $articular sel# has become the actuality o# hat it is in essence; but $recisely in this develo$ment the ethical order has been destroyed& <;> 664= >uilt is not an indi##erent, ambiguous a##air, as i# the deed as actually seen in the light o# day could, or $erha$s could not, be the action o# the sel#, as i# ith the doing o# it there could be linked something e)ternal and accidental that did not belong to it, #rom hich as$ect, there#ore, the action ould be innocent& <;> 62:= 9thical sel#-consciousness no learns #rom its deed the develo$ed nature o# hat it actually did&&&The resolve <9ntschluH=, ho ever, is in itself the negative as$ect hich con#ronts the resolve ith an AotherA, something alien to the resolve hich kno s hat it does& !ctuality there#ore holds concealed ithin it the other as$ect hich is alien to this kno ledge, and does not reveal the hole truth about itsel# to consciousness: the son does not recogniDe his #ather in the man ho has ronged him and hom he slays, nor his mother in the @ueen hom he makes his i#e& Bn this ay, a $o er hich shuns the light o# day ensnares the ethical consciousness, a $o er hich breaks #orth only a#ter the deed is done, and seiDes the doer in the act& .or the accom$lished deed is the removal o# the antithesis bet een the kno ing sel# and the actuality con#ronting it&&&& <;> 628= Bt is?through culture that the individual ac@uires standing <>elten= and actuality& 0is true original nature and substance is the alienation o# himsel# as S$irit #rom his natural being& This e)ternaliDation is?at once the means, or the transition, both o# the <mere= thought-#orm o# substance into actuality, and, conversely, o# the s$eci#ic individuality into essentiality& This individuality moulds itsel# by culture into hat it intrinsically <an sich= is? its actuality consists solely in the setting-aside o# its natural sel#& ?it is the contradiction o# giving to hat is $articular an actuality hich is immediately a universal& <;> 6:8= This substance is e@ually the universal work $roduced by the action o# all and each as their unity and identity, #or it is the being-for-self, sel#, action& <;> 658=