Being-for-Itself

Chapter

Abstract

In the first section of this chapter, Hegel defines being-for-itself as the one. In the second section, he maintains that the one logically passes over into the many, with which it is identical. He calls both this passing over and the many “repulsion.” Since the many ones are deemed identical, the many coalesce into the one again. Hegel calls both this process and the one “attraction.” In the third section, we find the alternating determination of repulsion and attraction. In this process, Hegel discovers the identity of repulsion and attraction, which again gives us the infinite being-for-itself. The main idea proposed here is that the mode of determining we find in this perpetual alternation proves to be a quantitative mode of determining.

Keywords

True Infinity Quantitative Mode Philosophy History Infinite Process Leibnizian Idealism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arthur, Richard. 2003. The Enigma of Leibniz’s Atomism. In Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, vol. 1, ed. Daniel Garber, and Steven M. Nadler, 183–228. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, Richard. 2011. Presupposition, Aggregation, and Leibniz’s Argument for a Plurality of Substances. Leibniz Review 21: 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton, Martha B. 2004. Leibniz to Arnauld: Platonic and Aristotelian Themes on Matter and Corporeal Substance. In Leibniz and His Correspondents, ed. Paul Lodge, 97–122. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, David G. 2007. A Commentary to Hegel’s Science of Logic. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harris, Errol E. 1983. An Interpretation of the Logic of Hegel. University Press of America.Google Scholar
  6. Hartnack, Justus. 1998. An Introduction to Hegel’s Logic. Trans. by Lars Aagaarg-Mogensen. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  7. Hegel, Georg W.F. 1833. Wissenschaft der Logik. Erster Theil: Die Objektive Logik. Erste Abtheilung: Die Lehre Vom Seyn, ed. Leopold Von Henning. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  8. Hegel, Georg W.F. 1896. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Vol. 3. Trans. by Elizabeth S. Haldane. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Hegel, Georg W.F. 1969a. Wissenschaft der Logik I. Erster Teil: Die Objektive Logik. Erstes Buch. ed. Eva Moldenhauer und Karl M. Michel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Hegel, Georg W.F. 1969b. Hegel’s Science of Logic. Trans. Arnold V. Miller. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  11. Hegel, Georg W.F. 1991. The Encyclopaedia Logic: Part I of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences with the Zusätze. Transl. by T. F Geraets et al. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  12. Leibniz, Gottfried W. 1973. Monadology. In Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, ed. George H.R. Parkinson, 179–194. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
  13. Leibniz, Gottfried W. 1989. Philosophical Essays. Trans. ed. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  14. McTaggart, John. 1910. A Commentary on Hegel’s Logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mercer, Christia. 2008. The Platonism at the Core of Leibniz’s Philosophy. In Platonism at the Origins of Modernity: Studies on Platonism and Early Modern Philosophy, ed. Douglas Hedley, and Sarah Hutton, 225–238. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Pinkard, Terry. 1981. Hegel’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 41 (4): 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plato. 1996. Parmenides. Trans. Mary L. Gill and Paul Ryan. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  18. Stace, Walter T. 1955. The Philosophy of Hegel. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, Charles. 1977. Hegel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Winfield, Richard D. 2012. Hegel’s Science of Logic: A Critical Rethinking in Thirty Lectures. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations