Talk:Lord–bondsman dialectic

Criticism Without Solution
Any chance of someone looking at the introduction? If its aim, as it should be, is to simplify the concept about to be discussed, then this fails miserably. Indeed, Hegel himself - and this might be considered somewhat rude - would have written it in a clearer manner. I mean: "The passage describes, in narrative form, the development of self-consciousness as such in an encounter between what are thereby (i.e., emerging only from this encounter) two distinct, self-conscious beings. The essence of the dialectic is the movement or motion of recognizing, in which the two self-consciousnesses are constituted in being each recognized as self-conscious by the other. This movement, inexorably taken to its extreme, takes the form of a "struggle to the death" in which one masters [beherrscht] the other, only to find that such lordship makes the very recognition he had sought impossible, since the bondsman, in this state, is not free to offer it."

Complete Revision Needed?
It seems to me that this is an exceptionally poor article. It's confusing and presents conjecture and opinion as fact. As anyone who has studied Hegel in any depth will know, the master-slave dialectic is an archetypal example of how Hegel has spawned various interpretations and readings. This article shows no appreciation of this and thus needs serious revision.

I suggest that we need clearer exposition of the Master-Slave Dialectic (Personally I'd suggest drawing from Stern's and Houlgate's simple and clear introductions to the Phenomenology) and a section briefly outlining different readings and its legacy in both the Analytic and Continental tradition - essentially we need to start again with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmanentCritique (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ImmanentCritique (talk) 16:64, 18 November 2013 (GMT)

The entire article seems like it was written by a First Year Undergraduate who just learned about Hegel and is putting forward their own loose interpretation as fact. It's not enough to edit pieces here or there, in my opinion the entire thing needs to be rewritten with various interpretations and much less soapboxing about Atheism and Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.247.162 (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?
this seems radically NPOV. The article is studded with "this is incorrect" "this is what is meant" that, afaict are original research. There are cites for the POV expressed, but there are other interpretations of Hegel that have been common, have been held by important thinkers, and have been held quite recently. AFAICT the preference for the one interpretation over the others is not sourced at all. I do not have the quals to either directly debate OR of the editor who appears to have written most of the research, nor to research all the state of the literature, but as written it does not read like a good Wiki article. It needs considerable work. Which is unfortunate, since I am sure the editor in question knows a great deal about Hegel.

Ricardianman (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no original research in this article; your conclusion is false -- and unsubstantiated by any examples of that supposed originality. You seem to be badly confused about the use of primary sources (direct quotations from Hegel in this case), contrasted with secondary sources (interpreters who base their opinions partly on their own reading of Hegel, but who of course have also studied secondary sources).  If you have a PhD, you learned (or should have learned) when writing your dissertation that primary sources are better and generally more reliable than secondary sources.  If you lack a PhD, then you need to become aware of the preceding fact.  Apparently because the article includes primary sources (quotations from Hegel), you assume that the conclusions supported by those quotations are "original."  In fact, those conclusions appear in the literature.  To repeat, there is no original research in the article, and your conclusion is baseless.Atticusattor (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In particular it seems to be based on the work of Robert Solomon. I'm sure he was a brilliant man, but is his interpretation of Hegel accepted as definitive - or is it being given undue weight? Among other things he seems to discount the meaningfulness of Religious Naturalism and Process Theology. The notion that there is atheism, and there is supernaturalism, and that all other approaches lack meaning is certainly a POV that exists, but was it Hegel's? Is it the only way to intrepret Hegel? More important to Wikipedia, is it the only template that has been used in reading Hegel? Beyond that, is the existence of a motive for parable proof of a parable?


 * Your inference that the parable interpretation is based on the work of Robert Solomon is far off base. It is true that Solomon identified Hegel as an atheist. It is also true that the master-slave parable expresses Hegel's atheism.  But where do you get the idea that Solomon is the only interpreter identifying Hegel as an atheist?  The interpreters who have concluded that Hegel was an atheist include Findlay, Tucker, Kaufmann, Solomon, McCarney, Kojeve, Hippolite, Pinkard, Westphal, Beiser, and Wheat.  The "meaningfulness" (or lack of same) of Process Theology has nothing to do with Hegel's atheism.  You seem to imply that, since Process Theology exists, nobody can be an atheist.  How absurd!


 * Also, why do you say the existence of a motive for the parable is offered as proof? The motive isn't offered as proof.  This is a matter of interpretation, not proof.  The interpretation is based partly on Hegel's atheism, partly on his repeatedly treating freedom as the opposite of "bondage" (as in Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage" heading), partly on the exact parallelism between Hegel's overriding freedom dialectic (covering the entire length of Phenomenology) and the master-and-slave dialectic, and partly on the obvious analogies between God and master and between slave and man (he who obeys the master)  Some people cannot recognize and understand parables even when the parables are explained.  All I can say is that if you demand "proof" that a parable is a parable, you are not going to recognize any parables.  You have to be smart enough to recognize the symbolism (who or what represents who or what).Atticusattor (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ricardianman (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I seriously had to check if this was Conservapedia instead when I started reading this article. The first paragraph, To understand the master-and-slave dialectic, one must first understand that Hegel was an atheist and that Phenomenology is a work that covertly espouses atheism –- covertly because an open display of atheism would have constituted professional suicide, gives the impression that we are here to hunt down those godless communists that covertly spread their vile atheism and try to poison the minds of American youth or something. The style of this article in general also resembles the way people in Conservapedia or other "ideological" wikis patronizingly try to explain the opposing ideologies. Probably the best part: Hegel’s Spirit, occasionally called God (to deceive readers)... 94.101.2.145 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that the article "gives the impression that we are here to hunt down those godless communists . . . [and} their vile atheism" is one of the most foolish conclusions ever to appear on a Wikipedia talk page. You imply that, because Hegel was an atheist and Communists are atheists, Hegel must have been a communist (even though there were no communists inhis day).  Your logic: all dogs have tails, this cow has a tail, therefore this cow is a dog.  You go on to suggest that the article attacks ("patronizingly" explains) communism.  Or is it atheism that is being attacked?  Either way, nothing in the article substantiates your foolish interpretation.Atticusattor (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section on atheism is extremely poorly written and seems like it's painting Hegel as some kind of social pariah working against the evils of Christianity. It's very hard in my opinion to interpret the Phenomenology as not being extremely critical of Church, but to brand Hegel as some secret Atheist who was being "indoctrinated" from youth seems almost absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.247.162 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So many errors in this one brief post of yours. The article doesn't portray Hegel as "working against the evils of Christianity."  It portrays him as writing a book he needed to write in order to gain a professorship in philosophy.  Next you say the article portrays Hegel as being "indoctrinated" in atheism.  An earlier edition of the article, which I didn't help write, said "indoctrinated in Lutheranism," but what I wrote was "though RAISED as a Lutheran" (not as an atheist!).  And if you think that "to brand Hegel as some secret Atheist ... seems almost absurd," how does it happen that at least ten interpreters have arrived at nonsupernatural interpretations of Spirit?  The interpreters include Findlay, Tucker, Kaufmann, Solomon, Kojeve, Hippolyte, Pinkard, Westphal, Beiser, and Wheat.Atticusattor (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How does a non-supernatural interpretation imply atheism, if religious naturalism is meaningful? BTW, I have read Kaufmann on Hegel, years ago. If you have a citation of him reading this dialectic the way you do, that would be useful. I seem to recall it as a parable about human life and about the evolution of society. Again, wiki is not a philosophy discussion, or a seminar, its an encyclopedia - even in articles about philosophy, citations of secondard sources are required, not assertions as to what a primary source means based on the brilliance of the wiki editor.

Ricardianman (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

is this a mischareterization of Kojeve? "The relation between Master and Slave…is not recognition properly so-called…The Master is not the only one to consider himself Master. The Slave, also, considers him as such. Hence, he is recognized in his human reality and dignity. But this recognition is one-sided, for he does not recognize in turn the Slave’s human reality and dignity. Hence, he is recognized by someone whom he does not recognize. And this is what is insufficient – what is tragic – in his situation…For he can be satisfied only by recognition from one whom he recognizes as worthy of recognizing him.

This establishes the constitutive need for mutual recognition and formal equality, if recognition of value is to be established. It is only when there is mutuality and recognition of all, that the recognition of any one becomes fully possible."

This seems to treat the parable as about human social relations, relations of class and politics, relations between existent persons in the material world, and not about a relation between "man" and "God". Ricardianman (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Christian themes are obviously abundant in Hegel's work and it would be a huge mistake to discount the possibility of an Adam and Eve connection as flippantly as Emeraude did in his above comment. I would encourage both of you to check out Hegel's Preliminary Notion to his Logic, which can be found here:. The section of interest is near the bottom and can be found under the title "The tales and allegories of religion". He therein refers explicitly to Adam and Eve and we can see the idea of a fall from original unity playing a huge part in Hegel's Epistemology/Metaphysics (it seems as though the two are always tied up with each other in idealism). I will just say briefly that in that text we get the idea of "the final concord [being] spiritual" in a world where "the hand that inflicts the wound is also the hand which heals it". Hegel notes only sentences later that "the second harmony must spring from the labour and culture of the spirit. And so the words of Christ, 'Except ye become as little children', etc., are very far from telling us that we must always remain children". I won't say much more except that there is certainly a connection between the story of the fall and the thought of Hegel, AT THE VERY LEAST in a symbolic way. Also I will say that if you think that the only way to understand the bible is literally ("Adam & Eve is, as you say, a myth, a story or a tale which is meant to be believed as if fact"), you may wish to investigate further. Also, if you believe that stories cannot be dialectic ("This is a dialectic, not a story"), I would encourage you to investigate the works of Plato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.223.104 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

A myth is a history story involving supernaturalism and that some superstitious people believe is true, whereas all supernaturalism is false. Master-and-slave is fiction but not a myth. It involves no supernaturalism and is not presented as a true story. Neither should it be referred to as an "account." The correct word is "parable," which means a fictional story with a moral and often using characters to symbolize other characters. Atticusattor (talk)

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)

The book-length basic dialectic (one of many dialectics) in Phenomenology moves from unconsciousness (thesis) to consciousness (antithesis) to self-consciousness (synthesis), also called self-realization. Your reference to "the [one] dialectical step" is incorrect: the master-and-slave parable covers both dialectical steps: (a) unconsciousness to consciousness and (2) consciousness to self-consciousness. Be careful about putting too much literalism and human psychology in your interpretation of "absolute knowledge." By absolute knowledge Hegel means newly acquired knowledge by an observer ("subject") that every external "object" (previously regarded as "alien," or something different from the observing subject) is really himself, because everything -- both subject and object -- is Spirit, which is the inner reality of everything. Before self-realization and absolute knowledge arrive, "the object is revealed to it [to subject] . . . and it does not recognize itself" (Phenomenology, Miller trans., paras. 374, 771). When self-realization occurs, "subject" finally recognizes itself in all external objects. Subject realizes that everything, including both itself and all observed "objects," is Spirit, Hegel's ersatz nonsupernatural God. Absolute knowledge is the knowledge that everything is God and that the God of supernaturalism does not exist. In other words, self-realization is becoming an atheist by treating humanity (the essence of Spirit, Spirit's Mind) as God. Atticusattor (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * Indeed. On John McDowell's interpretation, this widely prevalent "social" reading is a complete and utter misinterpretation of what Hegel is doing here. But it probably deserves first place in an article on that passage for this reason: the only reason the Lordship-bondage passage is well-known enough to deserve its own article is its extensive appropriation by other scholars, rightly or wrongly, as an argument for the social/communal nature of self-consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.179.114 (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right. I [blush] didn't read the 'Talk' page before editing a little, but have tried to correct this misapprehension in the gloss, at least.  I don't have time to go through and revise the whole page, which is sorely needed. I disagree entirely with the person above me, by the way, that this errant interpretation deserves first place here--certainly, it should be included, as it is (as you say) of great interest for the history of philosophy.  But leading with it really risks perpetuating a needlessly poor grasp of Hegel, and (over-)validating in readers' minds the intellectual authority of those perpetrating the misreading in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.8.96 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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) I think you are a turd. This is a perfectly understandable article if one follows the wikilinks and reads the pages one finds there. Eat your tag somewhere else. Sincerely, ROBOTSCIENTIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.55.217 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC) To ROBOTSCIENTIST: Why the unnecessary name-calling and rudeness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.24.9 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Derrida's The gift of death
Hi this article probably has some connections to Derrida's book, the gift of death. i would have to read this again, and then come back to Hegel, but someone might recognise it before I do that work. &mdash; F red  114  00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
"The Phenomenology exists, for reasons that are part of its nature and place in Hegel's work, in two places - as an independent work, apparently considered by Hegel to be an a priori for understanding the Science of Logic, and as a part of the Science of Logic, where absolute knowledge is explained." (from Wikipedia page)

Could someone please clarify this sentence? What is meant here by "the Phenomenology"? The whole Phenomenology of Spirit or just the Master-slave dialectic? Hegel does not, afaik, reproduce the whole Phenomenology of Spirit in the Science of Logic (though he does in the Encyclopaedia). If what is meant here is just "the master slave dialectic", then it is strange and misleading to refer to it as "the Phenomenology", which usually means the entire text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.173.235 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing
I found this article confusing. It seems to be using a different definition of self-consciousness to the one in the Self-consciousness article. It is also unclear to me, as another user has also found above, what is meant by "the Phenomenology". Some specialist terms are not Wikilinked on their first appearance, but only later in the article. They should be Wikilinked on their first appearance instead as: i) this makes it clear they are specialist terms and ii) it allows the reader to look them up when they first encounter them Atomice (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't know if anybody of you have got time (and skills) to look into the very clear and structured German entry to this issue. It might be a good idea to revise this article on the grounds of the other. I'm unfortunately too busy at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.14.148 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be added that the link to 'Chris Arthur' doubting the influence of this philosophical myth on Marx goes to Chris Arthur, the football-player, not the philosopher, not making the claim nor the article more credible, in fact. And it should be added that with the slave's working for the master, the concept of 'work' was initially introduced into philosophy which at least was of utmost importance for Marx.

Greetings, Andi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.77.63.183 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Master–slave morality (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Mrcrumplar has removed all reference to Master–slave morality and Friedrich Nietzsche from this article. While I accept that the previous reference to these topics may have been misleading and/or unsubstantiated, I think it is important that this article should mention the existence of a similarly named concept, perhaps either in the See Also section or in the hatnotes. RichardVeryard (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the deleted earlier reference to "master-slave morality," but I can assure you that Hegel's master-and-slave tale has nothing to do with morality (for which reason the "previous reference" was false and was correctly removed). Master-and-slave is a dialectical parable, a story with a moral and in which characters sometimes symbolize other characters. In Hegel's parable, which contains a cleverly hidden thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad, the slave is man, the master is God, and the slave's escape from bondage -- his regaining his "freedom" -- is man's escape from bondage to God, to religion, and to religious superstition. Man does this (achieves "freedom") by (1) ceasing to believe in God and thereby becoming an atheist and (2) elevating himself to "infinity" (divinity), or treating himself as God. In the master-and-slave parable, the master ultimately becomes dependent on the slave, so the slave becomes the master and the former master "lets the other [the former slave] go free." When man becomes God (treats himself as a figurative, nonsupernatural God), he is released from bondage to the supernatural God and to religious superstition. That is the hidden message of both the parable and the self-realization concept gradually developed in Hegel's book. Atticusattor (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Major Revision
A Wikipedia editor put the following caveat above this article: “This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help us clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (January 2012).” Unsurprisingly, Atomice wrote, “I found this article confusing”; someone else understandably wrote, “I totally agree.”  In truth, the earlier article was not only confusing and unclear but almost totally inaccurate and, in places, fantastic in its interpretations. Example: Two paragraphs refer to Hegel’s concept of “the end of history” in ways that make the concept both undefined and absurd, whereas Hegel is really referring to the end of dialectically structured thesis-antithesis-synthesis history, not to ordinary history, which he knows will continue beyond his history dialectic’s synthesis stage (“Germanic monarchy”). The article was obviously written in the 1958-2012 Gustav Mueller era, when it was fashionable to assert that Hegel never actually used thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics. There is no recognition that dialectics pervade both the master-and-slave parable and the overall Phenomenology context where the parable sits. Accordingly, the article failed to recognize that master-and-slave is indeed a parable in which two dialectical triads are hidden. The parable and the dialectics encapsulate the hidden atheistic message of Phenomenology: humanity, not the imaginary God of theism, is the true God, and “freedom” is release from bondage to religion. The master is God, the slave is man, and Spirit’s self-realization (escape from bondage to religious superstition) occurs when the slave becomes the master (when man becomes an atheist and treats himself as “God”). Atticusattor (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it looks like it's been munged by the religious/spiritual minded. I'd get involved, was a contributor to the former state, but have given up on Wikipedia because of the futility of battling just this sort of thing. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Uncritical, one-sided assertion of atheism
"To understand the master-and-slave dialectic, one must first understand that Hegel was an atheist and that Phenomenology is a work that covertly espouses atheism – covertly because an open display of atheism would have constituted professional suicide."

See the main entry on Hegel. This is by no means the majority view, and it should not be presented as such in this entry.70.174.155.35 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)stealstrash


 * This a behavioral issue with a particular editor. I have reversed his edit. &mdash; goethean 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kojève &para; deletion from Conclusions &sect;
There actually was an explanation in the change log but it was spurious, the text is not a glorification of anything. Unclear about the facticity of the text, can follow up on that as needed. Lycurgus (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we please correct title of this article?
The German title of this section of the PhG is "Herrschafft und Knechtshafft". As all of the English translators recognize, going back even to Baillie, this translates to "Lordship and Bondage." While other accurate translations may also be possible, to speak of a master and his slave is to misrepresent the text. The translational error is noted in the lead, but then the article proceeds, more often than not, to use the bad translation anyway. Is there any justification for this?

I would suggest correcting throughout and perhaps adding a para on when and how it became known as the master-slave dialectic in some parts of the literature. (I am guessing Kojève is to blame, although I don't have a source to hand confirming this. It's hardly likely, though that a German would change Hegel's own terms, and the English translators seem to have gotten it right.)

If no one objects, I'll come back at a future date and put in the request.

Thanks! PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)