The Dialectic of the 'I'

Inspired by section 508 in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Located in the chapter on Spirit B. Self-alienated Spirit Culture 1. The world of self-alienated Spirit a. Culture and its realm of actuality.

Section 508 in the Phenomenology of Spirit is an extremely interesting and important section in which Hegel aims to explicate the self-alienation which is a necessity in the realm of actual language, as well as show how language makes an individual universal through the particular. What I find especially thought-provoking is how the singular relates to universality in the "third dialectical moment (negation of the negation)". Singularity seems like the coincidence of universal and particular expressed in language as an universality, which is the way it remains/persists in the tension between particular and universal.

The alienation of Spirit takes place solely in language. In the actual world, language has the essence for its content and is the form of that content. In other words, the content of language is its essence, and language is the form of the content which it has. In its self-alienation its content is the form, which language itself is, and is authoritative as language.

The real existence of the self is in speech, self-consciousness as independent separate individuality comes into existence as such. Speech (as spoken to an other) means the existence of self-consciousness is necessarily for others. In expression, the 'I' is immersed in an actual reality, and can withdraw from it, take the stance of an observer to that reality in which it is immersed. It hereby reflects itself back into itself from its action, as well as its embodiment, and distances itself from such imperfect existence, which is always excessive and lacking at the same time.

Its imperfect existence is excessive in so far as it's too much too bear, excessive in so far as my expression takes on its own being with which I am unable to immediately identify myself with — which goes beyond me, excessive in so far as other people are too much for me and I am too much for them. It is lacking in so far as I deal with emptiness, lacking in so far as I can never say enough to express myself, lacking in so far as I can never get recognized enough and can never provide enough recognition for the other that would satisfy their desire as a yearning fleeing this very lack.

I let it (imperfect reality) behind as I reflect back into myself. But only language expresses the 'I' that I am, or the objectivity (as object of consciousness) of the nature of the 'I'. The 'I' is me as particular 'I' at this moment, but also the universal 'I' that can denote all particular 'I's. The moment I say 'I' the meaning is on the side of my particularity, and its objectivity on the side of its universality (its being for others). The manifestation of the 'I' in language therefore is externalization of particular meaning as it is raised to objective universality, as well as the vanishing of the particular 'I' that is meant. The vanishing-externalizing as coincidence of particularity and universality remains, in other words, the universality of the 'I' endures/persists through negation of meant particularity.

When I utter 'I', I am heard or perceived, and thereby I am in unity with those for who I have a real existence, as a universal self-consciousness. But the temporal passing of hearing/perceiving means the real existence dies away. But this fleeting of real existence, the negation of the 'I's positing is the real existence of the 'I'. The 'I' includes the moments of its positing and negation. As (now/positing) real existence, it is not (has passed/negation), and through this vanishing it is (now/negation of negation). The vanishing is its remaining, and it is itself as a self that passes over into another self that has been perceived and is universal.