Nb. this is on the bit starting C.AA.V(231), but before it begins C.AA.V.A (nb. noted below)
[231] “But in this object, in which it finds that its own action and being, as being that of this particular consciousness, are being and action in themselves, there has arisen for consciousness the idea of Reason, of the certainty that, in its particular individuality, it has being absolutely in itself, or is all reality.”
This allows *us* to unify them, as Reason.
[232] Reason relates to actuality via mode of idealism; to it the world or its own appearance are both assuredly within its thoughts, so it is not worried about independence or freedom.
H seems to be resetting. Saying that Reason is a new history. As if what it has overcome to become R, means that it has cancelled/appropriated it:
“it discovers the world as its new real world”
“In thus apprehending itself, after losing the grave of its truth, after the abolition of its actuality is itself abolished, and after the singleness of consciousness is for it in itself Absolute Essence, it discovers the world as its new real world, which in its permanence holds an interest for it which previously lay only in its transiency ; for the existence of the world becomes for self-consciousness its own truth and presence; it is certain of experiencing only itself therein.”
[233] “Reason is the certainty of consciousness that it is all reality; thus does idealism express its Notion.”
“idealism’ give direct expression to that certainty: ‘I am I’, in the sense that the ‘ I ‘ which is an object for me is the sole object, is all reality and all that is present.”
There is no more ‘other’ in the sense of having an intrinsic being separate to s.c.
“The consciousness which is this truth has this path behind it and has forgotten it, and comes on the scene immediately as Reason; in other words, this Reason which comes immediately on the scene appears only as the certainty of that truth. Thus it merely asserts that it is all reality, but does not itself comprehend this; for it is along that forgotten path that this immediately expressed assertion is comprehended.”
Not clear to me what it must be forgotten. But the conclusion means that this is a pre-conscious belief, i.e. without justification (e.g. the narrative of the PoS up to this point).
[234] This shape of c. is native to itself, born anew, and thus must face the shapes of c. that came previously, e.g. perception, uhc
[235-6] Previously category was the essential of the existent, but now it is the essence of the unity of s.c. and thing/that-which-has-being. There appears however a multiplicity of categories, as sub categories (per H’s use of the word). There result different moments, such as realizing that the multiple sub-cats are aspect of the simple cat, and thence that individual subsumes these differences into a grander unity.
Thus, C, is these moments, moving back an forth…
this process in the object, nullifying the object as distinct (from it), appropriating it as its own, and proclaiming itself as this certainty of being all reality, of being both itself and its object.”
ambiguity as Scepticism, except that, while this expresses itself negatively, the former does so positively”
“It is involved in a direct contradiction; it asserts essence to be a duality of opposed factors, the unity of apperception and equally a Thing; whether the Thing is called an extraneous impulse, or an empirical or sensuous entity, or the Thing-in itself, it still remains in principle the same, i.e. extraneous to that unity.”
[239] Reason: “being at first only the certainty that it is all reality, it is aware in this Notion that qua certainty, qua ‘I’, it is not yet in truth reality, and it is impelled to raise its certainty to truth and to give filling to the empty ‘ mine’ .”
————-
rational. It seeks its ‘other’, knowing that therein it possesses nothing else but itself: it seeks only its own infinitude.”
[241] It seeks itself in the world, planting its flags, and opening entrails, but it will always come up short until it has “completed itself internally”.
[242] It says that it wants to understand the world, but it actually is seeking itself, as is proved by the fact that in exploring the sensuous world it analyzes it via its own terms, as concepts.
—————————————
Per the notion of reason it follows that the artificial system (of the scientist) should confirm/conform with nature’s.
Describes the scientific method, cataloging and ascribing categories and genre. But then it has a problem:
“So it is that observation which clings to passive, unbroken selfsameness of being, inevitably sees itself tormented just in its most general determinations-e.g. of what are the differentiae of an animal or a plant-by instances which rob it of every determination, invalidate the universality to which it had risen, and reduce it to an observation and description which is devoid of thought.” [247]
Problem for observation separating determinateness with universality. At their borders, they meet.
This leads it to seek the laws (viz. that are responsible of the determinateness of an observation).
p147
