05.10.2013 Views

THE UNITY OF IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE AS THE ...

THE UNITY OF IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE AS THE ...

THE UNITY OF IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE AS THE ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

negativity” and as “the doubling which sets up opposition, and then again the negation of<br />

this indifferent diversity and of its anti-thesis [the immediate simplicity].” This third<br />

moment grounds and unites the first two. The third moment presents the basic action that<br />

constitutes the object, while the first and second moment – the simple and the bifurcation<br />

– exist as abstractions from this more basic action.<br />

As presented in this passage, Hegel’s proposed solution remains highly abstract,<br />

and we need to flesh it out a bit more to see what he is actually saying. First, we should<br />

explain Hegel’s construal of the first moment, the moment of “original or immediate<br />

unity,” the moment that is the simple. In terms of this chapter, this moment represents<br />

the sense in which the object is one. On Hegel’s view, the sense in which the object is<br />

one derives from the unity of its telos. The object is one because all of its facets<br />

contribute to some unified function that defines and constitutes the thing. Here we have<br />

at least part of the solution to our problem. 177 The object consists in a plurality of<br />

features that are all directed towards some unified function. Here it is “the directedness”<br />

– or a kind of functional relation – that explains the unity of the sense in which the object<br />

is many (the diverse functions of the plurality) and the sense in which the object is one<br />

(the unified telos or function that constitutes the object). Moreover, this account explains<br />

the essential nature of the relation – i.e. the sense in which the plurality and the unity<br />

cannot exist or be conceived in isolation from one another.<br />

The telos can only exist and be conceived in relation to the plurality. The telos is<br />

simply a particular way of uniting the plurality. The relationship between the plurality<br />

and the unity is somewhat more complex. The plurality can be described without direct<br />

177 Compare with F.H. Bradley and A.E. Taylor’s remarks about purposiveness as the ground of<br />

unity, remarks discussed in Section 1.2 of Chapter Two.<br />

179

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!