Singularity and Universality

Brice Jackson

Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit more or less begins with the most fundamental form of

understanding self-consciousness. One learns that basic consciousness is a result of a direct

relationship with an object. This consciousness wishes to give into desire and devour said object

to understand it’s features and characteristics. A consciousness that becomes self-consciousness

is one that seeks recognition in another self-consciousness. In interacting with another self, it

sees its individuality reflected in the other. This presents a fundamental contradiction due to the

fact that if self-consciousness is striving for individuality and the only way to be self-aware is

through the recognition of another individual, there is no true individuality in this sense since

there is always a need for more than one self in order for this relationship to hold true. In

elaborating on this claim, Hegel presents the idea of Lord and Bondsman. In an effort to establish

a sense of individuality, the two self-conscious beings will pit themselves against each other in a

life or death “battle”, the victor of said battle becoming the Lord who then has power over the

other self, thus making the Lord an individual.

Throughout the course of the dialectic within the sixth chapter titled “Spirit”, Hegel

begins to contextualize this essential concept via a cataloging of the development of self-

consciousness throughout the philosophy of various eras in history. Beginning with Ancient

Greek society, Hegel introduces the concept of the law of singularity versus universality. The

Law of Singularity (Human Law) and the Law of Universality (Divine Law) are meant to

represent the two self-conscious beings discussed in the previous paragraph, though they

represent the collective Greek polis, which Hegel then coins as Ethical Life. The Human Law

represents all aspects of the Greek city state (rules, customs, etc.) while the Divine law represents

the familial side of Greek society. Like the two self-conscious beings from before, these laws are
locked in a cyclical relationship and are similarly in constant opposition to each other. This

relationship paves the way for a contradiction to arise. Since both halves of Ethical Life are

constantly in opposition, it creates an awkward state of quasi equilibrium, which counteracts

both parties’ actions. While in action, both selves believe that they are fully in the right in an

effort to prove their dominance. The human law wishes to destroy the divine by removing their

son and placing him within the confines of the polis. In doing so, it disrupts the balance within

the divine law and places the singularity at a position of power, or lordship, over the divine.

Though due to the contradictory nature of the relationship, the divine must do to the human as

the human has done to it, as expressed by Hegel in saying, “The movement of the ethical powers

against one another, and the movement of the individualities that put them into life and action,

have only reached their true end when both sides experience the same downfall.”1 What Hegel is

saying is that in order to maintain Ethical Life, there must be equilibrium, therefore every action

in opposition to the other ethical power will be met with an equal reaction until the “battle” ends.

If this is not the case, then what is true of the fundamental desires of self-consciousness, which

Hegel believes to be flawed by this same contradiction, will manifest in the ethical powers, thus

destroying the existence of the polis. Due to the fact that Ethical Life in the Greek sense is so

deeply rooted in the constant struggle for power, it cannot escape the fate of contradiction which

thus forces it to be in a constant state of tension until one ethical power becomes the Lord, thus

spelling the demise of the polis.

1 G. W. F. Hegel. Spirit: Chapter Six of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. 25-pp 35.

 Works Cited

Hegel, G. W. F. Spirit: Chapter Six of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Hackett

Publishing Company, Inc. 2001.