A. The Mechanical Object: Section 1
Section 1 opens with a paragraph that is a reflection on the mechanical object
rather than a continuation of the immanent development of what the
mechanical object
is, as was the case in the previous paragraph. This is
something that Hegel does often, and without any warning, and it is important to
distinguish passages that add to the immanent development of a concept from
passages that are reflections on that immanent development.
With that caveat made, we can now look at what Hegel writes in the first
paragraph of Section 1. The paragraph is focused on making one point about the
nature of the mechanical object
: that one should not try to conceive of the
mechanical object
as being made up of two different things. The examples that
Hegel gives are, form and matter, whole and parts, and, substance and accidents.
In other words, one could try to distinguish the form of a mechanical object
from its matter. One could say, what it is for that rock to be a mechanical
object is for the form of rock-ness to be in unity with the matter of a rock.
This unity of form and matter is what constitutes the rock as a
mechanical object
. Hegel, however, warns us against any such conceptions. When
critiquing the form-matter distinction, he writes, “such an abstract difference
of individuality and universality is excluded by the Notion of object” (Hegel
1991, 712). The difference between form (universality) and matter
(individuality) is a kind of difference that is “excluded”
(Hegel 1991, 712) by the very concept of a mechanical object
. Why is
that? To answer this question we need only to cast our minds back to the first
paragraph of Mechanism, where the mechanical object
is explained to be an
“immediate identity” (Hegel 1991, 711) such that it is a “universality that
pervades the particularity and in it is immediate individuality”
(Hegel 1991, 711). In other words, it is incongruent with the concept of
the mechanical object
to conceive of it as having the difference of anything
as the foundation for its being. What it is for it to be a mechanical object
to be is for it to be an immediate identity. What is an immediate identity? The
determinations of the Concept
that constitute the mechanical object
. One
cannot conceptually distinguish the universal moment from the individual moment
of the mechanical object
because they are taken as identical to each other.
The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1 attests to this clearly:
“The object is therefore in the first instance indeterminate, in so far as it
has no determinate opposition in it; for it is the mediation that has collapsed
into immediate identity” (Hegel 1991, 712). The fact that the
determinations of the Concept
are immediately identical to each other and not
mediated means that the mechanical object
is indeterminate. In other words, it
lacks determinacy because there is no difference within it for any determinacy
to be established.
A natural question to arise from the above discussion that warns against any
notion of difference within the mechanical object
is the following: is it not
a kind of difference if we can distinguish between the various determinations of
the Concept
, even if they are immediately identical? Isn’t the fact that we
are to think of the universal
as a universal that pervades the particular
and is immediately individual
a reason to conceive of them as different to
each other? Hegel picks up on this point in the second paragraph of Section 1.
Hegel writes: “Insofar as the Notion is essentially determinate, the object
possesses determinateness as a manifoldness which though complete is otherwise
indeterminate, that is, contains no relationships, and which constitutes a
totality that at first is similarly no further determined; sides or parts
that may be distinguished in it belong to an external reflection”
(Hegel 1991, 712). Hegel is trying to square the circle of expressing the
mechanical object
as an indeterminate, immediate identity, on the one hand,
and on the other hand, as being essentially a further development of the
determinations of the Concept
, which requires us to think of the
mechanical object
as the unity of the three determinations (universality
,
particularity
, and individuality
) of the Concept
.
Hegel achieves this geometric feat by grasping the mechanical object
as an
“indeterminate difference” (Hegel 1991, 712). I think that we can treat
“indeterminate difference” (Hegel 1991, 712) as equivalent to “the
immediate identity” (Hegel 1991, 711) of the determinations of the Concept.
Because it is the three determinations of the Concept
that express the
difference, and their immediate identity that expresses their indeterminacy. The
reason why there can be difference and indeterminacy in the same breath is
because the difference between the determinations of the Concept
is a merely
formal one. They are different insofar as one is the universal
and the other
is the particular
but they are not different in relation to each other. This
is what Hegel means when he refers to the difference as “only that there are a
number of objects” (Hegel 1991, 712). In other words, they are different
insofar as there are three different determinations of the Concept
. Hegel goes
on to write that each object (each of the determinations of the Concept
)
“contains its determinateness reflected into its universality and does not
reflect itself outwards” (Hegel 1991, 712). This is one of those tricky
turns of phrase that Hegel uses, and understanding it is crucial to
understanding the logical structure of the mechanical object
. The first thing
to clarify is what Hegel means by “its determinateness” (Hegel 1991, 712).
The moment of universality
is the core of the object’s identity and that is a
moment of self-relating negativity. When the determination of universality
was
examined in the beginning of the Doctrine of the Concept it was comprehended as
being a self-relating negativity . This negativity that remains within the
universal
is the determinateness [Bestimmtheit] of the universal
.
Next, we have to clarify what Hegel means by “its universality” (Hegel
1991, 712) because I have already stated that the mechanical object
is not
just a universal
but is immediately all three determinations of the Concept
.
So what does Hegel mean by “its universality”. The “universality” of a
determination is its core essence - it is what it is for that determination to
be what it is. Just as the universal determination of a chair is that it has the
capacity to support someone in a seated position, for example, so too do
abstract determinations also refer to their moment of universality as the source
of their identity. Thus, in the case of the mechanical object
, when Hegel
refers to “its universality” he is referring to its basic source of identity.
Now that we have clarified what Hegel means by “its determinateness” and “its
universality” (Hegel 1991, 712), we are in a good position to understand
the rest of that sentence. The determinateness, i.e. the negativity, of the
mechanical object
does not reflect outwards. In other words, it does not
relate to anything that is outside of itself. Rather, it is reflected into its
universality
, i.e. it is reflected into its own source of identity. One
simplistic way to put this is that mechanical objects are narcissistic - they do
not relate to anything outside of themselves and are only self-relating. It is
in this sense that the mechanical object
is both indeterminate and has
difference within it. It has difference within it because of its
determinateness, because of its negative relation to itself. In this moment of
negative self-relation, the mechanical object
is immediately identical to all
three determinations of the Concept
. It is indeterminate because it does not
relate to anything outside of itself, it is only self-relating. In its
self-relating it is, effectively, relating to itself as the immediate identity
of the determinations of the Concept
. It is for this reason that Hegel writes
the following: “Because this indeterminate determinateness is essential to the
object, the latter is within itself a plurality of this kind, and must
therefore be regarded as a composite or aggregate” (Hegel 1991, 712).
What it is for the mechanical object
to be is for it to relate to itself as
the immediate identity of other objects (the determinations of the Concept
).
In other words, what it is for it to be itself is for it to be itself through
other objects that are taken to be identical to itself.
In a somewhat throwaway remark at the end of this conceptual discussion, Hegel
writes that the mechanical object
“does not consist of atoms, for these are
not objects because they are not totalities” (Hegel 1991, 712). It is worth
musing on this brief remark because it reveals a lot about how Hegel
conceptualises the wider significance of his account of the mechanical object
.
Hegel clearly has some mechanistic, in particular atomistic, worldviews in his
crosshairs when he goes out of his way to state that the mechanical object
does not consist of atoms. Hegel’s target is those that theorise that the world
is fundamentally made out of atoms and that since the world is made out of atoms
that everything is really just atoms. In Hegel’s account of Mechanism, he goes
out of his way to explicitly state that the mechanical object
, the simplest
kind of mechanical entity, is not reducible to atoms. There is not something
more fundamental to the mechanical object
that is the true reality of things.
Moreover, and perhaps a stronger rebuke to the atomists, not only is the
mechanical object
not reducible to atoms, but it is also not the most
fundamental thing. Hegel rejects this notion of fundamentality out of hand and
it is this rejection that is his strongest argument against atomistic or
atomistic-like conceptions of reality.
What follows from the last quotation is a long remark about how Hegel’s account
of the mechanical object
is akin to Leibniz’s conception of a monad. Hegel
writes:
The Leibnizian monad would be more of an object since it is a total representation of the world, but confined within its intensive subjectivity it is supposed at least to be essentially one within itself. Nevertheless, the monad determined as an exclusive one is only a principle that reflection assumes. Yet the monad is an object, partly in that the ground of its manifold representations-of the developed, that is, the posited determinations of its merely implicit totality-lies outside it, and partly also in that it is indifferent to the monad that it constitutes an object along with others; it is thus in fact not exclusive or determined for itself (Hegel 1991, 712).
Bibliography
- Hegel, G.W.F. 1991. Hegel’s Science of Logic. Translated by A.V. Miller. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
Authors
Ahilleas Rokni (2024)
Contributors
Filip Niklas (2024)