Soon after reading Hegel on “the unhappy consciousness” I participated in a conversation that gave me a new perspective on the issue and gave it a meaning I could relate to.
In (a nutshell, in) The Phenomenology of Spirit, the ascending development of consciousness is described. Hegel arrives at a stage of consciousness, that considers all its experiences to be manifestations of its own thoughts, a type of skepticism. The skeptic shape of consciousness develops into (what Hegel names) the unhappy consciousness, which comes to divest itself of what it had first considered to be its fixed and essential core. And this separated aspect is related to as a divinity; the focus of religion.
Walking the dog
Here is a story: Walking. Not alone; with an other. The Not-me is holding a leash; walking the dog.
[Not-me] I wish I was a dog.
[Me] Yeah. The life of a dog with a good owner is perfect. Everything it does is in tune with its being. Its entire biology is just expressed.
[Not-me] What I mean is a domesticated dog.
[Me] Yeah, me too. It was bred and evolved to be what it is today.
[Not-me] So it’s funny, what we want to be is – not just any dog, but – a domesticated dog!
[Me] It’s amazing how just saying their name makes them happy. It’s as if your name was “you’re amazing”. All we have to do is tell them “good dog” and their life is good.
[Not-me] And even when we say “bad dog”, it’s because they’re not being what they want to be [i.e. in harmony with their owner]
[Me] So what we want is an owner?! Pat ourselves on our back, “good boy”, or slap ourselves on our wrist, “bad boy”. That’s like religion!
[Not-me] So religion is us wanting to be domesticated.
[Me] Yeah. Religion is us externalizing our need to fulfil a purpose. We make ourselves god’s dogs.
[Not-me] It’s the same with science*. It’s their thing, up-out there, which tells them what’s right, and tells them when they’re right or good, or wrong or bad.
*Nb. in an existential and phenomenological sense; not in an epistemological sense.
[Me] Hey, that makes me think of some stuff I’ve been reading…
Re-comprehending the unhappy consciousness
I now have a paradigm for fitting the unhappy consciousness. I start with its dilemma: Although everything is made of thoughts, one set of those thoughts is continuously changing, whilst the other, which must be its core and justification, is unchanging. This core is the truth, and without it I can have no standard for reality (or for self-certainty, or for the good). There are different ways I could relate my life (which is ever-changing) to this (unchanging) truth, but they all have in common an aspect of a perennial yearning or striving.
I start with changing thoughts, and their unchanging basis, and in order that I be living correctly, strive to make my changing life correct per their unchanging essence. This forces a divide between the changing and the unchanging, so that the unchanging becomes this it out there.
Or again: I start with a chaotic life that seems bereft of standards of reality, or confirmation that I am doing the right thing. If only there was something or someone that could tell me when I was fulfilling my role in life; tell me when I was being true to my nature.
What I want is a god (maybe a personal god even) that contains and knows what it is that I’m meant to be doing and why I’m here. Only then could I live as this particular individual, yet have cosmic value.
