Rylan Chinnock

December-January 2014
The Relation Between the Particular and the Universal in Hegels Philosophy
The truth of Hegels iealism is crystalli!e in the iea of the concrete uni"ersal# the uni"ersal that
has unifie $ith the %articular by sublating the latter $ithin itself& '()* +,-.&
1
Hegel o%%oses this to $hat he
calls the /abstract uni"ersal*0 the category of uni"ersality that is sim%ly o%%ose to that of %articularity 1
one finite category o"er an against another& 2ore generally* the thesis of iealism consists in the claim
that no finite category is truly real* but only the ialectical unity of each in the totality of the Conce%t& 3n
the other han* the contraiction immanent $ithin iealism is that the Conce%t itself has no ialectical
contrary* but is itself the totality* $hich balloons into $hat 4orno calls the /meta%hysical illusion of
being0 '45* 4.&
2
6t is in the relation bet$een the truth of iealism an the contraiction $hich resonates
$ithin this truth itself that it is necessary to gras% the essence of Hegels %hiloso%hy&
7ut other$ise* the truth of iealism consists in the fact that* as far as conce%ts are concerne* none
has absolute %rimacy o"er any other& )anguage creates the facae of $hat 4orno calls /master conce%ts*0
but in reality it is necessary to measure each conce%t against both itself an its o%%osite* an to allo$ the
totality of all conce%ts to crystalli!e in a ialectical unity $hich efies summation& 8ni"ersality an
%articularity* for e9am%le* are finite categories* an neither is true ine%enently of the other& 3nly in their
unity o they %ossess their truth* $hich inclues 1 because it is a dialectical unity 1 their ifferentiation&
Hegel e9%resses this ialectical relation in the iea of the /ientity of ientity an non-ientity*0 or the
/unity of unity an ifferentiation0 '()* +4.& T$o o%%osing categories are :ust as much ientical as they are
non-ientical* an "ice "ersa; the only thing that %ersists throughout the ialectical relation bet$een them is
the identity of their ientity an their non-ientity itself& (imilarly* each %air of o%%osing categories are
simultaneously unifie an ifferentiate from one another; the only thing that remains $holly true about
their relation is the unity of this unity an ifferentiation itself&
The falsity of iealism consists in the fact that the Conce%t is only absolute $ithin a fi9e conte9t*
outsie of $hich is e"erything $hich it fails to encom%ass& 4s 4orno says* the Conce%t itself is a moment&
<or* if the Conce%t is the "ery =uintessence of self-reflecti"e reason* an reason must ha"e an ob:ect* then
reason is not itself the totality of $hat e9ists# something e9ists* e9ternal to reason& 6t is reasons task to
s%eak the truth of this ob:ect& 6n Hegels %hiloso%hy* ho$e"er* the illusion arises that the Conce%t is itself
the totality of being* the =uintessence of the real& This illusion is a by%rouct of the truth of iealism& 6n
iealist e%istemology* e"ery finite category* because it is an iea* is a etermination of thought& 4nything
that $oul be outsie of thought $oul be unreal* because it $oul com%letely refuse to enter the realm of
the true 1 $hich crystalli!es in the Conce%t& Truth is the measure of being* an truth is a moality of the
Conce%t 1 its %ositi"ity* so to s%eak 1 $hile contraiction is negati"ity* non-being& >ut non-being* as a
etermination of the Conce%t* is itself a moality of being* contraiction a moality of truth* because the
Conce%t contains all finite categories $ithin itself* an as such is the /truth0 of the "ery o%%osition bet$een
truth an falsehoo itself& 3n the other han* anything that remains outsie of the ichotomy of truth an
falsehoo 1 outsie of the Conce%t 1 is the unreal par excellence&
The Conce%t is the concrete uni"ersal $hich inclues all finite categories $ithin itself* but in their
sublation it makes one a:ustment to them# it turns them into uni"ersals& ?ithin the Conce%t* e"en the
%articular is a uni"ersal category or genus& This is inherent $ithin the "ery iea of conce%tuality# the
conce%t of a thing is $hat is uni"ersal in it& Thus* :ust as the Conce%t turns itself into a category $ith no
ialectical o%%osite 1 because it is the totality $hich encom%asses e"erything finite $ithin itself 1 so it is
itself inherently one-sie in terms of its o$n immanent content& 6t is the uni"ersality of language in $hich
each thing only a%%ears in the form of its /conce%t*0 i&e& insofar as it is something uni"ersal& >ut since
Hegels %hiloso%hy turns the Conce%t into the "ery =uintessence of the real* this means that e"erything
$hich fails to %artici%ate in uni"ersality is unreal* false* an irresol"able contraiction $hich is as non-
ialectical as the truth to $hich it is o%%ose& 6nsofar as something %artici%ates in uni"ersality* it has truth*
an insofar as it has truth* it has being& Con"ersely* insofar as it is fails to %artici%ate in uni"ersality* it is
1
@&?&<& Hegel* Science of Logic* trans& 4&A& 2iller '4tlantic Highlans* BJ# Humanities 7ress
6nternational.& Cite hereafter as ()&
2
Theoor 4orno* Against Epistemology: A Metacritique 'Cambrige# 7olity 7ress.* 4&
false* an insofar as it is $ithout truth it is $ithout being& 6t is for this reason that Hegel says in the
Phenomenology of Spirit that $hat is truly %articular is '1. meaningless* '2. irrational* an ',. $ithout
being&
The %ure %articularity $hich Hegel iscusses in the Phenomenology is the %henomenon of sense
e9%erience# this %articular ob:ect* this %articular moment* this %articular %lace* this %articular human being&
The section on /(ense Certainty0 is not only about the objects of sense e9%erience& Rather* :ust as the This*
Here* an Bo$ are transfigure by consciousness into ieal essences* so is the sub:ect& 6n trying to name
the %ure %articularity of this sub:ect* this %articular human being* /C6 o inee mean a single D6* but 6 can
no more say $hat 6 mean in the case of D6 than 6 can in the case of DBo$ an DHere0 '7(* E2.&
,
>ut in
trying to e9%ress its o$n %articularity* the sub:ect in fact says /something unessential0 '7(* E2.* $hich is
$ithout reality $hen face $ith the essential truth $hich it certainly oes not mean to say* but $hich it
ne"ertheless does say& Thus transforme into an ieal essence* the sub:ect becomes the /sub:ect in general0
1 the %articular sub:ect insofar as it %artici%ates in the genus of %articularity&
The true meaning of the %articular is thereby obscure* because it is not consiere qua %articular*
but rather as a uni"ersal& 6n reality* ini"iuals are not %articular insofar as they %artici%ate in the genus of
%articularity* but also insofar as they are uni=ue* singular in an em%hatic sense 1 this %articular ini"iual*
an no other& 6n Hegel* ho$e"er* the %articular qua %articular is etermine as meaningless an irrational;
absolute iealism only recogni!es that $hich %artici%ates in the uni"ersality of the Conce%t&
(%irit thereby o%%oses itself to its o$n nature* because it is the nature of (%irit to be a sub:ect* an
e"ery sub:ect is %articular* not by %artici%ation in the uni"ersal category of %articularity* but as this
%articular sub:ect& >ecause* ho$e"er* this element of %articularity cannot be abolishe* but only ignore or
re%resse* it recurs $ithin Hegels %hiloso%hy as a kin of unkno$able ob:ect 1 it e9ists* but only insofar
consciousness oes not want to kno$ it& 6t returns as an ob:ect $hich is beyon consciousness* but $hich
ne"ertheless oes e9ist - the %ure %articularity of the ini"iual recurs as the unconscious& 3r* other$ise
%ut* it recurs as the uns%eakable blin s%ot of Hegelian iealism* unseen because it is unable to enter the
uni"ersality of the Conce%t& >ut since it nonetheless does e9ist* its absence re"erberates $ithin the (ystem
as the contraiction $hich animates the entire course of the ialectic& 4s Hegels %hiloso%hy itself
emonstrates* the lack that something contains $ithin itself is the source of its mo"ement* a truth $hich
hols as much for his %hiloso%hy as it oes for the ob:ects treate $ithin it& The Hegelian ialectic is* like
e"ery ob:ect* reflecte into itself* $hich in this case means that the contraictory absence of true
%articularity resonates in the (ystem as the "ery element of irrationality that Hegel belie"e to inhere
$ithin all e9istents* its self-e9ternality* so to s%eak&
6n re%ressing the %articularity of the e9istent* the sub:ect actually abolishes its consciousness of
this ob:ect itself& The unconscious character of this re%ressi"e attitue to$ars the %articular recurs in the
concrete form of conformism 1 not only as an antagonistic attitue to$ars ones o$n %articularity* but also
as the unconscious tenency to see the %articularity of others in a ba light "is-F-"is the uni"ersal& This is
%art of the %sychology of Hegels %hiloso%hy* so to s%eak& 6t unconsciously aims at the re%ression of its
o$n %articularity* as $ell as that of others* the meaning of $hich is banishe e"er further into the realm of
the unconscious* insofar as it is eeme ine9%ressible* meaningless* an $ithout being& Con"ersely*
because the %articularity of the e9istent cannot be e9%resse by a consciousness $hich eems it un$orthy
of e9%ression* the suffering $hich (%irit im%oses u%on its o$n nature resonates $ithin HegelGs %hiloso%hy
as an unintelligible torment* that it $oul be better for the ini"iual not to talk about& 6t is* after all* an
effrontery against truth to talk about $hat is meaningless an unreal as if it in fact had meaning an did
e9ist& <inally* it is because of this re%ressi"e attitue to$ars the %articular that Hegels octrine of the
(tate fails to reconcile the ini"iual $ith the moment of uni"ersality that they contain&
This %a%er $ill attem%t to illuminate the ialectical relation bet$een the truth of iealism an the
ieological unertones that etermine the internal structure of Hegels %hiloso%hy&
The Phenomenology of Spirit and the Dialectic of Subject and bject
4n ob:ect $hich lacks a unifie conce%t resists the totali!ing mo"ement of the ialectic* an
thereby solicits its o$n negation& Ha"ing either no iscernible meaning* or no single theme ca%able of
3
@&?&<& Hegel* Phenomenology of Spirit* trans& 4&A& 2iller '39for# 39for 8ni"ersity 7ress.& Cite
hereafter as 7(&
bining its "arious eterminations together in a single $hole* it elues the schemati!ing im%ulse of thought&
The "arious forms $hich it takes are not intelligible $ithin the hori!on or conte9t of a single thought* but
must be thought successi"ely* an therefore $ithout unity& 3n the other han* it might be sai that sim%ly to
be thinkable* e"en if only successi"ely 1 one moment in one form an in the ne9t in another 1 alreay this
%resu%%oses a certain le"el of unity* insofar as it is the same ob:ect that is in each instance thought in
ifferent $ays& The unity or sameness of the ob:ect that is in each case e9%erience ifferently has its origin
in the unity of the acti"ity of thinking itself* $hich bins these ifferent forms together in a single iea
$hich reaches back$ars an for$ars across time&
This unity* ho$e"er* is %urely formal& 6t is formal* because one is not able to unerstan $hy in
each case one ientifies the same %henomenon uner the guise of i"erse forms& 4ll that %ersists in the
thought of these ifferent forms is a series of affinities $hose significance remains unintelligible 1 or* e"en
less than this* the mere $ors by $hich one ientifies the thing& 3n the other han* $hen each of the
successi"e forms taken by a single ob:ect of thought are sai to ha"e a unifying nature or essence* then it is
necessary to s%eak of unity on a ifferent le"el& To synthesi!e these i"erse a%%earances together $ithin a
single iea %resu%%oses an essential unity* in $hich all moalities %resent themsel"es as moments of a
single $hole& 4n the essence of this $hole is such that* consiere from one moment to the ne9t* it is
al$ays the same* an the thought of it is im%er"ious to the %assage of time& <rom $hate"er angle it may be
consiere* it %resents itself as an inissoluble unity* in $hich all ifference is only e"er a manifestation of
the (ame* $hich unites all %articulars uner the so"ereignty of the uni"ersal&
6n the iea of the 4bsolute* Hegel belie"e himself to ha"e isco"ere such a unity* not in any
single %henomenon* but in the totality of being itself& He concei"e of this as a ialectical unity* in that it is
a sameness $hich %er"aes an ominates the essence of ifference itself& Thus* in his e9%ression* /the
ientity of ientity an non-ientity0 '()* +4.* it is ackno$lege that the ob:ect of s%eculati"e thought is
not only self-ientical $hile also containing ifference $ithin itself* but that both of these eterminations
belong to an ob:ect $hich is in each case essentially one an the same& (imilarly* /the unity of unity an
ifferentiation0 '()* +4. refers to a %henomenon $hich is not only a unifie $hole $hich contains
istinctions $ithin itself* but in $hich this unity an ifferentiation are themsel"es essentially unifie# it is
one ob:ect $hich simultaneously unifie an ifferentiate $ithin itself&
These e9%ressions* $hich are essential to Hegels %hiloso%hy as a $hole* are e9em%lary of the
thesis of iealism# they e9%ress the %ersistence of ientity* not only $ithin $hat is non-ientical* but as
encom%assing it an subuing it to the totali!ing %o$er of thought& The non-ientity of $hat is non-
ientical is e"en turne against this latter by s%eculati"e %hiloso%hy* as the "ery means by $hich the ob:ect
is mae ientical in the ialectical unity of the Conce%t& <or $hat is non-ientical is the negati"e, $hich is
the ialectical basis of its o$n negation 1 the negation of the negation 1 an the negation of the negation is
%recisely the transfiguration of the negati"e into the %ositi"e&
The Conce%t is the organic unity of the finite in a ialectical totality 1 the infinite 1 $hich alone is
the true& The truth of this totality is crystalli!e in the form of thought itself* $hich bins the manifol
eterminations of these beings together in the Conce%t& The Conce%t is the %arao9 of Hegels iealism# it
is the ialectical unity of e"erything finite 1 the e%itome of emystification 1 $hich nonetheless turns itself
into a finite category* $hich ought to ha"e a ialectical o%%osite* but oes not 1 the "ery essence of the
obscurantism that it $as su%%ose to abolish& The consummation of this totality is the uni"ersal self* or
(%irit* $hich is su%%ose to be a kin of transcenental sub:ect in $hich the %articular* em%irical sub:ect
recogni!es itself&
The Phenomenology of Spirit occu%ies a central role in Hegels %hiloso%hy because its central
mo"ement consists in (%irits coming to kno$ itself as the concrete e9istence of this 4bsolute& 6t attains
this kno$lege at the %oint $here the t$o moments of consciousness 1 sub:ect an ob:ect 1 intersect in the
self-kno$ing 4bsolute $hich has fashione the $orl in the image of its o$n essence& This %rocess is
historically meiate* an the thesis of the Phenomenology of Spirit consists in the claim that the generation
of truth lies %recisely in the self-e"elo%ment of consciousness itself& Consciousness* by turning into self-
consciousness* simultaneously contains $ithin it both the ob:ect of its kno$lege qua ob:ecti"e reality* an
qua the kno$ing sub:ect itself& 4n since only that $hich %artici%ates in the uni"ersality of the Conce%t is
real* consciousness* qua the transcenental sub:ect* actually encom%asses the totality of e9istence $ithin
itself& The %rocess by $hich the t$o are %rogressi"ely meiate by one another until they constitute a
single $hole is $hat might be calle the ialectic of a%%earance an essence& ?hen this essence of the
4bsolute has manifeste itself to consciousness 1 i&e& a%%eare in ob:ecti"e reality 1 an $hen
consciousness ientifies this a%%earance as its o$n essence* then it attains absolute kno$ing& Hno$ing
itself as the 4bsolute or the true* consciousness recogni!es itself as (%irit&
Thus* the genesis of the 4bsolute is simultaneously the e"elo%ment of the ob:ect of kno$lege*
$hich is substance* an of the kno$er* or the subject& This ialectic of sub:ect an ob:ect unfols in the
objectie %rocess through $hich (%irit actuali!es itself in the e9ternal $orl* an in the subjectie %rocess
$hereby it recogni!es itself in this ob:ecti"e reality& The locus of this e"elo%ment is consciousness* $hich
contains both sub:ect an ob:ect $ithin itself 1 the li"ing essence of the Conce%t as it emerges from the
shao$s& Hegel says#
The inner coming-to-be or genesis of substance is an unbroken transition into outer
e9istence* into being-for-another* an con"ersely* the genesis of e9istence is ho$
e9istence is by itself taken back into essence& The mo"ement is the t$ofol %rocess an
the genesis of the $hole* in such $ise that each sie simultaneously %osits the other* an
each therefore has both %ers%ecti"es $ithin itself; together they thus constitute the $hole
by issol"ing themsel"es* an by making themsel"es into its moments& '7(* 24-I.
This unification of sub:ect an ob:ect in the Conce%t is the en or telos of consciousness* $hich it mo"es
to$ars by nature& 6n this regar* Hegels %hiloso%hy is similar to 4ristotles* $ho efines the nature of a
thing as the self-mo"ement to$ars its essence* i&e& its en& The Hegelian t$ist on the 4ristotelian conce%t
of nature is that the subject that mo"es to$ars its en is simultaneously the substance $hich emerges as
the absolute truth of being itself& Consciousness is the li"ing form of the Conce%t* in $hich the sub:ect an
the ob:ect unfol into their fully e"elo%e truth* $hich is (%irit&
Thus* the (ystem is actually threefol# '1. the True* as an ob:ect of kno$lege* '2. the ob:ecti"e
$orl in $hich both truth an kno$lege take form* an ',. (%irit* the transcenental sub:ect by $hich '1.
is gi"en a concrete actuality as '2.* an in $hich both are ientifie as the self-kno$ing actuali!ation of ',.&
(%irit is not an isolate* ini"iual sub:ect; it is the uni"ersal self in $hich each ini"iual sub:ect
recogni!es itself* as $ell as the %lurality of these ini"iual sub:ects themsel"es& 3ne can see this self-
relateness of (%irit in the Phenomenology of Spirit* $hen t$o self-consciousnesses each recogni!e an are
recogni!e by one another& Hegel there efines (%irit as /this absolute substance $hich is the unity of the
ifferent ine%enent self-consciousnesses $hich* in their o%%osition* en:oy %erfect freeom an
ine%enence# D6 that is D?e an D?e that is D60 '7(* 110.& (%irit is the totality of (ame an 3ther in
$hich each sub:ect is simultaneously an ini"iual an the uni"ersal self* both /60 an /?e&0 The uni"ersal
self encom%asses the %lurality of ini"iual sub:ects* but also has its reality therein* as the uni"ersal
meiation of these many 6s&
?hen this concrete uni"ersality e"elo%s itself to %erfect harmony* then (%irit has attaine its en*
$hich is freeom& 6n the Philosophy of !ight an the Philosophy of "istory* this culmination of the
4bsolute takes the concrete form of the (tate& 6n the (tate* the ini"iual is not only a %articular sub:ect*
but also meiate by the uni"ersality of la$ an right& 6n simultaneously %ursuing their o$n %articular
interests $hile also %artici%ating in the uni"ersal orer $hich encom%asses them* the ini"iual is not only
an /6*0 but also the /?e&0 <or Hegel this unity constitutes the reconciliation of the %articular an the
uni"ersal in the /union of the subjectie an the rational ?ill0 '7H* ,J.&
4
3nly in the unity of the %articular
an the uni"ersal are they reconcile to one another; an only in this reconciliation oes the ini"iual as
such e9ist 1 since* as $e see in the Logic* the efinition of ini"iuality is the unity of %articularity an
uni"ersality&
I
Just as the ialectic is only com%lete $ith the establishe ientity of sub:ect an ob:ect* the
ini"iual only truly /e9ists0 insofar as there is an ob:ecti"e* uni"ersal orer in $hich it recogni!es itself&
6ts ob:ecti"e e9istence must contain an element of uni"ersality* because this is an essential moment of
ini"iuality& ?hen the uni"ersal element of the sub:ect attains ob:ecti"e reality* then the e9ternal reality of
this %articular sub:ect is simultaneously a uni"ersal being 1 i&e& is an ini"iual in the true sense& 6t is no
longer a merely %articular sub:ect* but is also a /uni"ersal self0 '7(* 1E.* or (%irit&
4
@&?&<& Hegel* Philosophy of "istory* trans& J& (ibree 'Be$ Kork# Do"er 7ublications.& Cite hereafter as
7H&
5
()* EE+# /6ni"iuality unites $ith uni"ersality through %articularity; the ini"iual is not uni"ersal
immeiately* but through the meium of %articularity; an con"ersely the uni"ersal similarly is not
immeiately ini"iual but escens to ini"iuality through %articularity&0
The ini"iual attains its en by reali!ing itself as (%irit $hich has gi"en itself ob:ecti"e reality&
Hegel says#
<or )a$ is the ob:ecti"ity of (%irit; "olition in its true form& 3nly that $ill $hich obeys
la$* is free; for it obeys itself 1 it is ine%enent an so free& ?hen the (tate or our
country constitutes a community of e9istence; $hen the sub:ecti"e $ill of man submits to
la$s 1 the contraiction bet$een )iberty an Becessity "anishes& The Rational has
necessary e9istence* as being the reality an substance of things* an $e are free in
recogni!ing it as la$* an follo$ing it as the substance of our o$n being& The ob:ecti"e
an the sub:ecti"e $ill are then reconcile* an %resent one ientical homogeneous
$hole& '7H* ,--40.
The ini"iual emboies their o$n essence by mirroring the rationality of la$ an right& 3ther$ise* the
ini"iual remains alienate from its o$n essence* if this is not an ob:ecti"e reality as $ell as a sub:ecti"e
truth& That is* the ini"iual has /s%iritual reality0 '7H* ,-. insofar as it has not merely a subjectie* but
also an objectie* reality 1 an this is attaine* in Hegels "ie$* by their %artici%ation in the concrete
uni"ersality of the (tate&
6n the Phenomenology of Spirit* the reconciliation of the %articular an the uni"ersal is reali!e in
the unity of sub:ect an ob:ect in the Conce%t& Their unification o"erries their ifference an reners it
obsolete& 6n the (tate* ho$e"er* this unity oes not result in a ialectical harmony bet$een the %articular
an the uni"ersal* but rather in the supremacy of the uni"ersal o"er the %articular& This has its roots in the
thesis of iealism* $hich surre%titiously %reetermines the relationshi% bet$een the %articular an the
uni"ersal so as to rener their reconciliation im%ossible& The form of this hierarchy must be e9amine*
follo$e by an analysis of the contraiction containe $ithin the thesis of iealism* to $hich the
irresol"able antagonism bet$een the %articular an the uni"ersal is necessarily linke&

Particularity and Universality
The Hegelian ialectic can be seen as the %rogressi"e subsum%tion of the %articular into the
uni"ersal* but also as the concreti!ation of the uni"ersal through the meiation of the %articular& 6n this
"ie$* both the %articular an the uni"ersal are seen as o%%osing categories $hich are of ialectically e=ual
status& 5ach are necessary moments of the ialectic& They cannot remain in isolation* ho$e"er* but must
%rogressi"ely unify themsel"es into a single $hole& Hegel calls this the /concrete uni"ersal0 '()* +,-.*
because it is the uni"ersal $hich contains ifferentiation $ithin itself; as such* it is a meiate totality of
uni"ersality an %articularity& /4bstract uni"ersality*0 on the other han* is the uni"ersal as immeiately
o%%ose to the %articular %rior to any meiation bet$een the t$o&
6t is im%ortant to notice something about this relation bet$een %articularity an uni"ersality*
ho$e"er* $hich Hegels %hiloso%hy tens to obscure& The concrete uni"ersal* it is sai* is the unity of the
%articular an the uni"ersal& This unity $oul therefore not be the uni"ersal thus unifie $ith the %articular*
but another le"el of uni"ersality o"er an beyon both of them& 6t is the uni"ersal $hich has synthesi!e the
uni"ersal an the %articular $ithin itself& Therefore* in the meiation of the uni"ersal an the %articular an
ine=uality emerges# the element of uni"ersality is doubled* so to s%eak* insofar as it is not only %reser"e as
the ialectical counter-%ole of the %articular* but simultaneously re%licates itself as the higher unity of the
t$o& The uni"ersal* in Hegels language* hereby sho$s itself to be the truth of the %articular& 6n their
com%lete inter%enetration* uni"ersality con=uers o"er %articularity&
This mo"ement is alreay %refigure in the beginning of the Phenomenology of Spirit& 6n the
section on (ense Certainty* $hen consciousness tries to e9%ress the %ure %articularity of the ob:ect of its
immeiate e9%erience* it un$ittingly turns this %articularity into a uni"ersal& 6n attem%ting to e9%ress the
/This*0 /Here*0 /Bo$*0 an /60 $hich immeiately %resent themsel"es to sense e9%erience* consciousness
alreay* sim%ly by saying them* ele"ates them into the uni"ersality of the Conce%t& This uni"ersality is the
"ery element of consciousness* as Hegel unerstans it& Bothing that is truly %articular can entire the
omain of language* because consciousness* accoring to Hegel* is /inherently uni"ersal0 '7(* EE.&
This inclues not only the ob:ects of sense e9%erience* but its subject as $ell& Hegel says#
?hat oes not isa%%ear in all this is the D6 as uniersal* $hose seeing is neither a seeing
of the tree nor this house* but is a sim%le seeing $hich* though meiate by the negation
of this house* etc&* is all the same sim%le an inifferent to $hate"er ha%%ens to it* to the
house* the tree* etc& The D6 is merely uni"ersal like DBo$* DHere* or DThis in general; 6
o inee mean a single D6* but 6 can no more say $hat 6 mean in the case of D6 than 6
can in the case of the DBo$ an DHere& ?hen 6 say Dthis Here* Dthis Bo$* or a Dsingle
item* 6 am saying all Thises* Heres* Bo$s* all single items& (imilarly* $hen 6 say D6* this
singular D6* 6 say in general all D6s; e"eryone is $hat 6 say* e"eryone is D6* this singular
D6& ?hen (cience is face $ith the eman 1 as if it $ere an aci test it coul not %ass 1
that it shoul euce* construct* fin a priori* or ho$e"er it is %ut* something calle Dthis
thing or Dthis one man* it is reasonable that the eman shoul say $hich Dthis thing* or
$hich Dthis %articular man is meant# but it is im%ossible to say this& '7(* E2.
This is an essential mo"ement in the ialectic of sub:ect an ob:ect& 6t is (%irits first attem%t to meiate the
%articular an the uni"ersal& 6n this attem%t to name the %ure %articularity of the /sense ob:ect*0
consciousness incientally reuces the essence of the sub:ect qua %articular to a meta%hysically enigrate
ob:ect $hich is /uns%iritual*0 because it is merely /natural*0 i&e& a /sense ob:ect&0 6n this mo"ement* the
inherently one-sie nature of the ialectic makes itself unmistakably clear# in the meiation of the
%articular an the uni"ersal* the t$o are synthesi!e* but in the abolition of the %ure %articularity of the
/this*0 /here*0 an /no$*0 the %articular as such is change into a uni"ersal category* an thereby alreay
subsume into its o%%osite& 6t is in this sense that the en of the Phenomenology of Spirit is %refigure in
the beginning& The first meiation of the %articular an the uni"ersal alreay names the latter as the truth of
the former* $hich* in its %ure form* is nothing&
The res%onse to this $ill naturally be# of course the %articular is necessarily change into a
uni"ersal category* other$ise it $oul be unable to enter into the omain of language& Dialectical thought
emans the trans%osition of the %articular into the element of uni"ersality* other$ise it $oul remain
belo$ the le"el of consciousness& This is true* but the %articular most not only be trans%ose into the s%here
of uni"ersality* but must simultaneously stan outsie of the uni"ersal* must remain %articular& The
%articular must at once be subsume by the uni"ersal an not be& 3nly thus can the claim of ientity $hich
gi"es the %articular an the uni"ersal their ue be balance by that $hich lies outsie the Conce%t* $hich is
necessary if the ialectic is to o :ustice to the 4bsolute& 6f this is not maintaine* then the tension %ro%er to
the ialectic issi%ates* or rather e"ol"es into ieology&
The hierarchical relation bet$een the uni"ersal an the %articular has its origin in the thesis of
iealism& The truth of iealism consists in the claim that no finite category is true in itself* but must be
gras%e as something meiate by $hat is e9ternal to it& 6n %articular* the finitue of the categories of
uni"ersality an %articularity must be gras%e as meiate by one another* an as ha"ing their reality only
in an through this meiation itself& 4s $e ha"e seen* ho$e"er* their unity is itself a kin of uni"ersality; it
is the /concrete uni"ersality0 in $hich the uni"ersal that is o%%ose to the %articular re%rouces itself on a
higher le"el after ha"ing absorbe the %articular into itself& This is the negation of the negation* in $hich
the negati"e 'the %articular. is transfigure into something %ositi"e 'the uni"ersal.* a non-ialectical t$ist
because the %ositi"e oes not turn $ith e=ual tenacity back into the negati"e& 6n this $ay* the uni"ersal
sho$s itself to be the truth of the %articular&
?e ha"e seen ho$ Hegels %hiloso%hy attem%ts to emonstrate the necessary unity of the
%articular an the uni"ersal in the Phenomenology of Spirit& Then $e sa$ ho$ this unity oes not in fact
im%ly the e=uality of the terms $hich are synthesi!e* but rather consists in the establishment of the
su%remacy of uni"ersal o"er the %articular at the %recise moment $hen they are most fully integrate into
one another& Bo$ it $ill be necessary to e9amine the $ay in $hich this mo"ement is roote in the thesis of
iealism* $hich lies at the basis of Hegels %hiloso%hy& The ieological character of Hegels %hiloso%hy
$ill thereby isclose itself* but only alongsie the "ery means by $hich this contraiction can itself be
o"ercome&
!""anent #riti$ue of !dealis"
The irrationality* meaninglessness* an non-being of %ure %articularity has its roots in the thesis of
iealism& This thesis claims that $hat efines an ob:ect is its truth-content* $hich e9ists concretely in the
act of kno$ing& <or the ob:ect of kno$lege is truth* an the truth of a thing is its sole significance "is-F-
"is thought& Hegel says in the Phenomenology of Spirit that :ust as the 4bsolute alone is true* so /the truth
alone is absolute0 '7(* 4+.& The truth of a thing is not only $hat reners it intelligible* but the measure of
the e9tent to $hich it exists& 4 thing $hich has no truth oes not e9ist in the full sense of the $or* an
con"ersely* e"erything that e9ists has some truth&
There is no truth $ithout the %ossibility of kno$lege* for truth is manifeste in the self-
recognition of the kno$er in the kno$n& /Pure self-recognition in absolute otherness* this 4ether as such* is
the groun an soil of (cience or $nowledge in general0 '7(* 14.& This self-recognition of the kno$ing
sub:ect in the ob:ect kno$n consists in the ientification of $hat is uni"ersal in it* its conce%t& <or the self-
recognition of the kno$er in the ob:ect of kno$lege is only %ossible insofar as there is something common
bet$een the t$o* an this commonality is the uni"ersality of thought itself& 6n other $ors* $hat is true in a
thing is its %artici%ation in the uni"ersality of the Conce%t* $here the sub:ect an the ob:ect coincie#
insofar as a thing %artici%ates in an ieal form or essence* therefore kno$able* it has truth* an therefore
being& 4s in 7lato* the being of a thing is eri"e from its %artici%ation in its conce%t&
The intere%enence of truth an kno$lege* an* in turn* the ientity of truth an being* has
conse=uences that reach far beyon e%istemological concerns& 6t $oul be a%%ro%riate to say that these
relations ha"e /%ractical0 1 as o%%ose to /theoretical0 1 conse=uences* if the "ery o%%osition bet$een
theory an %ractice $ere not a %rouct of iealism& The thesis of iealism tethers truth to kno$lege* an
being to truth& Hno$lege* in turn* is groune in the uni"ersality of the Conce%t& Thus* $hile uni"ersal
/conce%ts0 are the /truth0 of theory* uni"ersal /norms0 are the /uty0 of %ractice& The suborination of the
%articular to the uni"ersal constitutes the essence of both theory an %ractice* $hich are the t$o o%%osing
%oles of iealist thought& Thus* Hegel efines the fully e"elo%e truth of his (ystem* the 4bsolute 6ea* as
the /ientity of the theoretical an the %ractical 6ea0 '()* J2I.& 6n both its /theoretical0 an /%ractical0
forms* iealist thought aims at uni"ersal truths $hich are %osite o"er an against the %articular as its
/truth0 or its /uty0 1 i&e& as that to $hich it is suborinate* either in theory or %ractice& 6n both theory an
%ractice* iealism sees e"erything in the %articular $hich e"iates from the uni"ersal as something to be
ignore or re%resse& 6t asserts that the uni"ersal is the truth of the %articular* an e"erything $hich e"iates
from it is meaningless* irrational* an $ithout being&
Hegels remarks concerning religion an ethical life emonstrate the su%remacy of the uni"ersal
o"er the %articular in iealist thought& 6n his "ie$* for e9am%le* only an immature conce%tion of @o $oul
make him the ob:ect of faith; @o truly e9ists insofar as he is an ob:ect of kno$lege 1 that is* insofar as he
is unerstoo in the uni"ersality of the Conce%t& 4n since the /pure self-recognition in absolute otherness0
'7(* 4+. is the /4ether0 of kno$ing* @o only has truth insofar as the kno$ing sub:ect recogni!es him as
their o$n reflection& 4s Hegel says in the Phenomenology of Spirit* ho$e"er* the human essence is not
something belonging to this %articular ini"iual* but to all ini"iuals& Therefore* true $orshi% oes not
consist in a relation bet$een this %articular ini"iual an @o* but rather in the ini"iuals suborination
of their %articularity to the abstract relation bet$een the essence of humanity an @o in general& Hegel
$rites# /6n it LreligionM* (%irit 1 rising abo"e the limitations of tem%oral an secular e9istence 1 becomes
conscious of the 4bsolute (%irit* an in this consciousness of the self-e9istent >eing* renounces its
ini"iual interest; it lays this asie in De"otion 1 a state of min in $hich it refuses to occu%y itself any
longer $ith the limite an the %articular& >y (acrifice man e9%resses his renunciation of his %ro%erty* his
$ill* his ini"iual feelings0 '7H* 4-.& The freeom of the ini"iual is accom%lishe in the suborination
of their %articularity to the uni"ersality of truth& Truth is efine as the concrete uni"ersal* $hich contains
%articularity $ithin itself* but only qua a uni"ersal genus& The union of the uni"ersal an the %articular in
the concrete uni"ersal itself signals the ascenency of the uni"ersal o"er the %articular&
6n religion* it is necessary for the sub:ect to /ultimately a"ance to the intellectual com%rehension
of $hat $as %resente in the first instance* to feeling an imagination0 '7H1I.& <eeling an imagination are
contingent an therefore irrational forms in $hich (%irit recogni!es itself& The e9%erience of reality must
e"entually ascen to the realm of abstract thought* $here it can kno$ truth in its %ure form* $hich is the
Conce%t& This sie of the sub:ects e9istence is $hat Hegel calls /sub:ecti"e (%irit&0 6n their sub:ecti"e
e9%erience of reality* the ini"iual is calle to suborinate their feeling an imagination to the uni"ersality
of abstract thought& Con"ersely* in $hat Hegel calls /ob:ecti"e (%irit*0 $here the infinitue of thought is
concreti!e in the $ill* the ini"iual is calle to suborinate their %articularity to the uni"ersality that
obtains there 1 to the (tate&
4ccoring to Hegel* kno$lege eals $ith uni"ersals 1 that is* $ith truth 1 $hereas feelings an
imagination concern $hat is %urely %articular an therefore unreal& Thus* ethical relations o not %rocee
from feeling or imagination* but from kno$lege& Therefore* Hegel sees only arbitrariness in the
%articularity of the ini"iuals conscience& He $rites#
Conscience oes not recogni!e the absoluteness of any content* for it is the absolute
negati"ity of e"erything eterminate& 6t etermines from its own self# but the s%here of
the self into $hich falls the eterminateness as such is the so-calle sense-natureC& <or
conscience* ho$e"er* self-certainty is the %ure* immeiate truth; an this truth is thus its
immeiate certainty of self* concei"e as content* i&e& this truth is in general the ca%rice of
the ini"iual* an the contingency of his unconscious natural being Lhis sense-natureM&
'7(* ,-0-1.
5thical relations are rational* meaningful* an actual insofar as they stem from $hat is uni"ersal& >ut these
are* as $e $ill see* nothing but the customs an la$s $hich the ini"iual recei"es reay-mae from the
(tate& /<eelings0 such as %ri"ate conscience are not a sufficient basis for ethical relations* because are
contingent an o not %artake of the concrete uni"ersality $hich alone is s%iritual in Hegels sense of the
$or&
Hegel recogni!es the %rinci%le of ini"iuality as an essential moment of the moern $orl* but he
egraes this ini"iuality to a mere function of $hat is uni"ersal& Thus* in the actuali!ation of ethical life*
Hegel says* /the self-$ill of the ini"iual has "anishe together $ith his %ri"ate conscience $hich ha
claime ine%enence an o%%ose itself to the ethical substance& <or* $hen his character is ethical* he
recogni!es as the en $hich mo"es him to act the uni"ersal $hich is itself unmo"e but is isclose in its
s%ecific eterminations as rationally actuali!e0 '7R* 10-.&
E
(imilarly* he says# /The iealism $hich
constitutes so"ereignty is the same characteristic as that in accorance $ith $hich the so-calle D%arts of an
animal organism are not %arts but members* moments in an organic $hole* $hose isolation an
ine%enence s%ell isease0 '7R* 1J0.&
?hat is characteristic of these %assages is that they emonstrate Hegels tenency to fa"or the
uni"ersality inherent $ithin a thing o"er its %articularity& 6n ethical relations* the moment of %articularity is
suborinate to the su%%osely more rational com%onent of uni"ersality 1 to the customs an la$s that the
(tate %rescribe to the ini"iual& The uni"ersal is %reetermine from the beginning as the /uty0 of the
ini"iual& Just as truth consists in the finitue of the %articular in theory* so uty consists in the ser"ility of
the %articular in %ractice& (imilarly* it is not the %articularity of the ini"iuals relation to @o that efines
religious e9%erience* but the uni"ersal truth that manifests itself in the ini"iuals kno$lege of @o& The
%articular an the uni"ersal* $hich are su%%ose to be of ialectically e=ual status* o not ultimately %lay
the roles of ialectical counter-%oles* but rather e9ist in a relation bet$een ruler an rule& The unity of
%articularity an uni"ersality in Hegel is in itself the reali!ation of the uni"ersal as the truth of the
%articular&
This is not to say that kno$lege oes not ha"e a central role in both religious e9%erience an
ethical relations& >ut the moment of %articularity that is accom%lishe in %ersonal feelings of e"otion an
com%assion* an in the creati"e %o$er of the imagination* are e=ually essential in religion an ethical life&
The sub:ect is an essential moment of the Conce%t* but there is no sub:ect $ithout sub:ecti"ity* an
sub:ecti"ity cannot ele"ate itself abo"e its o$n ini"iual e9istence* nor ought it try to& The uni=ue
%ers%ecti"e that is %ro%er to the sub:ect reners the logicality of the Conce%t bining* not through blin
submission* but through the e9%erience of truth $hich only a sub:ect can unergo& ?ithout the %o$ers of
feeling an imagination* the sub:ect $oul actually cease to be such; it $oul be an ob:ect $hich mimics
the function of the sub:ect* $ithout actually being such& Con"ersely* insofar as kno$lege eals $ith
uni"ersals* it is oubtful $hether this uni"ersality can be se%arate from the element of %articularity %ro%er
to the sub:ect 1 $hich* in the form of feeling an imagination* shoul be of ialectically e=ual status to the
uni"ersality of the Conce%t&
To reca%itulate# $hat is e9clue from kno$ing* an thus from truth* is $hat belongs to the
%articular qua %articular& This %ure %articularity is* for Hegel* meaningless* irrational* an $ithout being;
because it cannot be kno$n by means of the Conce%t* it has no %lace in the (ystem& >ecause the
uni"ersality of the Conce%t is the measure of being* the %articular $hich stans asie from all %artici%ation
in uni"ersality is in itself $orthless& 4s such* it is banishe from the realm of thought& Thus banishe*
ho$e"er* it recurs as a kin of Hantian thing-in-itself* $hich is entirely beyon consciousness an therefore
6
@&?&<& Hegel* Philosophy of !ight* trans& T&2& Hno9 '39for# Clarenon 7ress.& Cite hereafter as 7R&
unkno$able& The inherent blin s%ot of the close (ystem is $hat remains outsie of it* the truth of $hich
it $ill not s%eak&
>ecause the %ure %articularity of beings can ne"er be $holly eraicate* but only ignore or
re%resse* it oes not emerge $ithin the (ystem as a real category of being ackno$lege by
consciousness* but rather in the form of the unconscious& 5"en $hile remaining belo$ the le"el of
consciousness* ho$e"er* it conitions consciousness* $hich aims unconsciously at its abolition* or rather its
re%ression& Consciousness is unconsciously conitione by $hat it re%resses* $hich it seeks continually to
%ush belo$ the le"el of consciousness&
?hat is thus etermine as un$orthy of s%eech is the sense ob:ect* or rather* sense experience as a
$hole& This is the e9%erience of the %articular qua %articular& 4s such* it is outsie the uni"ersality of the
Conce%t* anterior to kno$lege e"en $hile mo"ing $ithin it& This element of %articularity $hich is %ro%er
to sub:ecti"e e9%erience is banishe to the realm of the unconscious# this is the necessary %rice that
consciousness %ays for eeming its o$n %articularity as un$orthy of e9%ression& Consciousness esignates
the %articularity of sense %henomena as unreal* an %ushes it outsie the realm of e9%erience# not only oes
it fail to say the truth about this ob:ect* but it oes not want to say it& 6n this $ay* (%irit re%resses its o$n
nature* because it is the nature of (%irit to be a sub:ect* an e"ery sub:ect li"es $ithin sense e9%erience :ust
as much as $ithin language& 6n oing so* the sub:ect simultaneously abolishes its o$n consciousness of the
ob:ect that it re%resses# its o$n re%resse nature returns to it in a form $hich it cannot recogni!e* because it
oes not want to recogni!e it&
>ecause the %articularity of ini"iual e9%erience cannot be ae=uately e9%resse by a
consciousness $hich oes not eem it $orthy of e9%ression* ho$e"er* the suffering $hich (%irit im%oses
u%on itself a%%ears in Hegels %hiloso%hy in a maske form& The truth of the %articular is su%%resse*
because reifie consciousness takes the uni"ersality of its categories as the "ery =uintessence of the real#
nothing is allo$e to remain outsie the uni"ersality of the Conce%t e9ce%t at the %rice of its truth& Thus* as
soon as Hegel grants the %articular its ue* he suborinates it the absolute right of the ?orl-(%irit#
This inner focus 1 the sim%le region of the claims of sub:ecti"e freeom 1 the home of
"olition* resolution* an action 1 the abstract s%here of conscience 1 that $hich com%rises
the res%onsibility an moral "alue of the ini"iual* remains untouche; an is =uite shut
out from the noisy in of the ?orls History 1 incluing not merely e9ternal an
tem%oral changes* but also those entaile by the absolute necessity inse%arable from the
reali!ation of the 6ea of <reeom itself& >ut as a general truth this must be regare
settle* that $hate"er in the $orl %ossesses claims as noble an glorious* has
ne"ertheless a higher e9istence abo"e it& The claim of the ?orl-(%irit rises abo"e all
s%ecial claims& '7H* ,+.
The right of the ini"iual to their o$n sub:ecti"e fulfillment is of %urely relati"e "alue& >efore the all-
encom%assing significance of the uni"ersal* the %articular loses its :ustification an is suborinate to
$orl-historical concerns& 6n reality* the /infinite right of sub:ecti"ity0
+
sho$s itself to be thoroughly finite*
something unessential& Hegel $ants to claim that the ini"iual has recei"e $hat is %ro%er to it* because
other$ise his thought $oul lose its ialectical ege; ho$e"er* because the thesis of iealism %roclaims the
nothingness of the %articular qua %articular* he fails to o :ustice to this latter* an reners it meaningless
before the su%%ose nobility of the uni"ersal&
J
7
Cf& 7R* J4&
8
The iea that Hegel $ants to ackno$lege the %articular* because of the ialectical nature of his
%hiloso%hy 1 but ultimately oes not make goo on this %romise* is taken from Theoor 4ornos analyses
of this in his "istory and %reedom& Cf& Theoor 4orno* "istory and %reedom* trans& Roney )i"ingstone
'Cambrige# 7olity 7ress.* 42& 4orno $rites# /?e se here a contraiction* a non-ialectical contraiction*
in Hegels %hiloso%hy& 3n the one han* he calls for the ialectic of the uni"ersal an the %articular an
actually carries this through =uite magnificently in many res%ects& >ut then he fails to take the %articular
=uite so seriously an constantly threatens to go o"er to the sie of the uni"ersal 1 if 6 may %ut it that $ay 1
so that the consciousness of non-ientity $hich characteri!es the %articular is stri%%e of its o$n
substantiality an sur"i"es only as suffering* as a consciousness of %ain& 6nstea of concluing that $hat $e
ha"e is a state of non-reconciliation* he beha"es a little like a senior church official or a :uge* at any rate
like some high-u% bureaucrat or other* $ho sees only the limite outlook of the lo$er orers $ho are
The truth about the %articular remains ine9%ressible* because the "ery structure of iealism reners
it null an "oi from the "ery beginning& Thus* $hile Hegel a%%ears to recogni!e the autonomy of the
ini"iual in %ractical life* this is only a sham& He %ays tribute to the significance of the ini"iual# /6f men
are to act* they must not only inten the @oo* but must ha"e ecie for themsel"es $hether this or that
%articular thing is a @oo0 '7H* 2-.& >ut then he immeiately says that their conscience ought sim%ly to
recei"e its irecti"es from the customs an the la$s of the (tate# /?hat s%ecial course of action* ho$e"er*
is goo or not* is etermine* as regars the orinary contingencies of %ri"ate life* by the la$s an customs
of a (tate; an here no great ifficulty is %resente& 5ach ini"iual has his %osition; he kno$s on the $hole
$hat a :ust* honorable course of conuct is0 '7H* 2J--.& Hegel seems to suggest that it $oul be better for
the ini"iual to kee% =uiet an fin their %lace $ithin the uni"ersal* es%ite any in:ustice on the %art of the
latter&
This tenency to %ay hee to the %articular only in name* an not in terms of the concrete
substance of his %hiloso%hy as a $hole* is %rimarily $hat is ieological in Hegel& 6n orer to correct this* it
has been necessary to trace these tenencies back to the thesis of iealism itself* $hich* by suborinating
the %articular to the uni"ersal* is their ieological ferment& 3n the other han* this thesis also contains the
=uintessence of $hat is true in Hegels %hiloso%hy* an it is therefore the le"er by $hich one must arise his
%hiloso%hy abo"e the contraictions $hich it bears $ithin itself& 6t is by follo$ing Hegels metho of
immanent criti=ue that it is %ossible* in 2ar9s $ors* to gras% the /rational kernel $ithin the mystical
shell&0
unable to recogni!e the higher meaning in all of this0 '"istory and %reedom* 42.&