Talk:Master-slave dialectic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Title
Shouldn't this article be at Master-slave dialectic rather than Slave-master dialectic? Isn't that the usual order, as used by Hegel? mgekelly 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Similarities to the Adam and Eve Myth
I can't help but notice the similarities of this myth to the Adam and Eve myth from the Bible. Could the fruit of the tree of knowledge and Adam and Eve's disgrace symbolize the encounter between Hegel's two people?
Absolutely not. Adam & Eve is, as you say, a myth, a story or a tale which is meant to be believed as if fact. Hegel is not a story teller, he is a philosopher. This is a dialectic, not a story. Emeraude 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Liberty Leading the People
I have removed the image of Deacroix's Liberty Leading the People from the article. It is a commemmoration of the 1830 July Revolution in France and does not relate at all well to Hegel or the Master-slave dialectic - the picture and the revolution had nothing to do with master-slave relationships, but mass movements to overthrow the state; it is not about self-consciousness (just look at it). Emeraude 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Myth?
Calling Hegel's formulation of a Master-Slave (or lord-bondsman) dialectic a "Myth" seems to be a decidedly POV take on it. 128.239.152.92 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I agree with this point, the term "Myth" is not commonly used to describe the Master-Slave dialectic. Hegel abstracts the personal 'I' in order to illustrate consciousness and self-consciousness. From this interpretation the Master-Slave dialectic is referred to as an "account". Ingredients (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page needs a revision
The dialectical step expounded in the Master/Slave dialectic is not the step from consciousness to sef-consciousness at all, it is the step from self-consciousness to absolute knowledge, Spirit, or in Hegel's final formulation, Science. This is not only a very different step, it is also the most debated conclusion of the Phenomenology of Spirit. Kojeve might have overstated its influence in the 19th Century, but the Master/slave dialectic remains crucial for an understanding of this particular work. Dasein42 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The step from consciousness to self-consciousness is synonymous with the step from consciousness to absolute knowledge. To become self-aware or "self-conscious" IS to move from ignorance to different levels of knowledge which culminate in "absolute" knowledge, or Spirit/Science. We may all possess self-consciousness (i.e. a level of knowledge) but due to individual circumstances we all have a different proximity to absolute knowledge. Some of us are simply more awake/aware, or to put it in Hegelian terms - more self-conscious than others. What else is true self-consciousness than an "absolute knowledge" of our inner-selves (i.e. the sense of existence that truly knowing reality brings to us). Thus, to say there is a movement from "consciousness" to "absolute self-consciousness" is the exact same thing as saying there is a movement from "consciousness" to "absolute knowledge". Juanlambda27 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Only One Interpretation?
Why is the only interpretation of the Master-Slave offered here the external interperetation? I have been lead to believe through several close readings of this section of the Phenomenology and through discussions with others that this may simply be a metaphor for what's going on inside the mind of a single human being. The only nod at that possible other interperetation is that it this one is described as a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spozmo (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overly specialized article
Like many of our philosophy articles, this could be made far more accessible to non-specialists; this is of particular concern, given that the concept frequently crops up in university courses offered to students with no philosophical background. I've added the jargon cleanup tag. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
