C. The Kind.

(G. L. iii. 259. Enc. 220.) Hegel’s view is, apparently, that the idea of the Kind is nosy the Seele, or principle of unity, of each Organism. And it is the inadequacy of any particular Body to manifest the general idea of the Kind, on which he relies to demonstrate the inadequacy of all Organic manifestation.

270. This view seems to me to be quite unjustified. It is true that the Universal element in the Organism. becomes more explicit when we realise that it not only manifests itself in its own Body, but maintains itself iii and by means of its relation to what is outside its Organism. And it is true that a Kind, or species, is Universal as compared to the Individuals which belong to it. But the transition from one to the other is quite illegitimate, for they are two quite different Universals. The Universal which constitutes a Kind is a Universal such as was discussed under Subjectivity — a common quality, or group of qualities, which can be shared by various Individuals. It was because this sort of Universal proved inadequate as a description of existence that the dialectic passed in Objectivity to the Universals of Systems. The Universal throughout Objectivity, and now in Life, has been the Universal which is the unity of a System, a Universal which belongs to and unites certain differentiations, so that each of them has its definite place in the S stem, and, by means of this systematic connexion, they existence of one differentiation determines the existence of another. This is clearly quite a different notion from such a Universal as “ lion.” The latter denotes a group of qualities which may be, as in point of fact it is, shared by many beings, but which does not unite them in any sort of system, since the existence of one lion does not determine the existence of any others — at least, does not determine it by virtue of their common Universal. If all lions but one were annihilated, the survivor would not be any less a lion, while, on the other hand, if all the organs of a living body but one were annihilated, the one which remained would no longer be part of an organic unity.

Hegel has therefore no right to substitute one conception of Universal for the other at this point, they were equivalent — especially as in doing so he a conception which he had demonstrated to be defective for the higher conception which had transcended the defect.

271. Since, according to Hegel’s view, the Seele of the Organism is its Kind-Universal, the Organism, as being only a particular Individual, is unable to manifest this Seele adequately. The inadequacy is displayed in two ways. Firstly, the Individual propagates its Kind, by producing other Individuals which belong to the Kind (G. L. iii. 261. Enc. 220). Secondly, the Individual dies (G. L. iii. 262. Enc. 221).

I cannot see that Hegel has justified his view that the Body of the Organism will be inadequate to manifest its Seele. He has transformed the System -Universal, with which Organism started, to a Class-Universal, which is not the Seele of the Organism. And there seems no reason whatever to say that a particular Organism cannot manifest such a Class-Universal of a Kind. The Class-Universal of the Kind of lions, for example, consists of certain general qualities — the qualities of being vertebrate, mammal carnivorous, etc. There is no reason why a particular Organism should not possess all these qualities, and, if it does, it is an adequate manifestation of the Class-Universal.

The statement that the inadequacy is shown in Propagation also seems to me mistaken, because I cannot see what characteristic of the category of Organism, as reached in the dialectic, could possibly correspond to Propagation. The other biological facts whose names have been Seele, Body, Sensibility, Irritability, Assimilation, are, as we have seen, examples of certain characteristics of the category. But there has been no demonstration in the dialectic that one of the Organisms of a particular Kind would be produced by another Organism of the same Kind, not. anything which even suggests that this would be the case. And nothing. but a production of one Organism by another could appropriately be named after the biological fact of propagation.

The biological fact of death could doubtless be taken as an example of the change which would take place if an Organism, as defined by the category, broke up so that the parts of its Body ceased to be connected with one another by the Seele, and so ceased to form an organic Body. Such a dissolution would be incompatible with the conception of Organism, as Hegel first deduced it, for according to that the parts would have no nature apart from their connexion in the Organism, and could not, therefore, exist when it was dissolved. But Hegel, as we have seen, takes the Organism to be an imperfect manifestation of its Seele, and so the parts, which do exist the Organism, might possibly exist otherwise.

But while the inadequacy of the manifestation would thus allow of the dissolution of the Organism Hegel’s attempt to treat that dissolution as an expression of the inadequacy of the Organism must be condemned as invalid. For the inadequacy of the Organism to express its Seele is, according to Hegel, necessary and invariable. If the inadequacy is inconsistent with the existence of the Organism, the Organism can never conic into existence at all, and therefore can never dissolve. If the inadequacy is not inconsistent with the existence of the Organism, then the dissolution of the Organism cannot be accounted for by the inadequacy.

272. Death and propagation, while they proclaim the inadequacy of the manifestation, also, according to Hegel, furnish the escape from the inadequacy. “The process of Kind, in which the individual Individuals (die einzelnen Individuen) lose in one another their indifferent immediate existence, and die in this negative unity, has also for the other aspect of its product the Realised Kind, which has posited itself as identical

with the ‘Notion. In the Kind-process the separated individualities of the individual lives pass away; the negative identity, in which the Kind returns to itself, while it is on one side ‘the production of individuality, is on the other side the transcending of individuality, and thus is the Kind which conies together with itself, the Universality of the Idea which is becoming for itself” (G. L. iii. 262. Cp. Enc. 221, 222).

Thus Hegel finds the solution of the inadequacy in the conception of the Kind as a whole, which remains while its members die. He reaches this conception by means of the conception of Propagation, which, as I have endeavoured to show above, is unjustified. But this need not invalidate the present step, since we should have a right to conceive of the Kind as a whole, even if its members were not connected by any tie analogous to propagation in biology. And again, while Hegel was not justified in taking Death — the dissolution of the Organism — as the expression of the inadequacy of the manifestation of the Seele, it is still possible that Organisms may dissolve.

But, when we have reached the conception of the Realised Kind, is the idea of the Kind manifested with less. inadequacy than it was before? It seems to me that this is not the case. The idea of the Kind, as we have seen, is simply that group of Universals which are possessed by every member, actual or possible, of the Kind. These are manifested in the separate members of the Kind, or nowhere. It is, for example, the individual lions who are carnivorous, not the species as a unity, for the species as a unity cannot eat flesh. Now Hegel has arrived, rightly or wrongly, at the conclusion that the individual Organisms cannot, in any case, adequately manifest the idea of the Kind, which is their Seele. And, if that is correct, they cannot manifest it adequately when we take them all together, and call them the Realised Kind. The grouping them together will make no difference to the inadequacy in the case of each Organism, since the inadequacy, according to Hegel, is a necessary characteristic of an Organism. And, if the manifestation is not adequate in the case of particular Organisms, it cannot be adequate at all, for it only occurs in the particular Organisms.

273. It may be replied, possibly, that Hegel has, legitimately or illegitimately, changed his conception of the idea of a Kind, and that that idea is Dot, for him, a Class-Universal, but a System-Universal, which can be realised in all the member., of the Kind taken together, though it cannot be realised in any one of them separately.

There seem to me, however, three objections to this view. In the first place, if Hegel had meant this, he would have held that all the members of each Kind formed together one single Organism, for an Organism, for him, means a system of parts which manifests, as a whole, a unity which none of the parts could manifest separately. Now there is nothing in Hegel’s language to suggest that the Kind is now to be regarded as itself an Organism. He never to it either Sensibility, Irritability, or Reproduction, all of which he considers as essential for an Organism.

In the second place, if he had taken this view, he would have departed very materially from the analogy of biology, where a species, or other kind, does not mean an organic whole, the existence of one member of which involves the existence of all the rest, but a class composed of all the beings who have certain common qualities. We have seen that, up to this point, Hegel has been keeping very close to the biological analogy of the category — much closer than he was Justified in doing. Is it probable that, at this point, while still using biological names profusely, he should have so far departed from the biological analogy, without a word of warning or justification?

In the third place, if the Kind really were meant now to be a System-Universal, which would only be manifested through all the members of the Kind taken together, then, if Death were brought in at all, it could only be on the view that Death did not really remove the individual from the Kind, and so did not destroy the totality required for the manifestation. But this is certainly not Hegel’s view. It is clear from the passage last quoted that the adequacy of the manifestation in the Realised Kind is not dependent on the irrelevancy of Death to the question of manifestation. On the contrary, it is only because “the separated individualities of the individual lives pass away” that the manifestation can become adequate.

Those lives, therefore, cannot be members of an Organism in which the adequate manifestation occurs, and is they are members of the Kind, the Kind is not an Organism.

274. Thus we must, I think, take the Kind-Universal to be, as is certainly suggested by its name, a Class-Universal and not a System-Universal. And in that case, as I pointed out above, the Realised Kind cannot give a more adequate manifestation than the separate members. Nor does the introduction of Death help the matter, though Hegel seems to think that it does so. The inadequate manifestations successively pass away, in the successive dissolutions of Organisms, but they leave nothing better behind them. So long as there are any Organisms left, they are only inadequate manifestations of the idea of the Kind. If, on the other hand, they all passed away, there would not be a Realised Kind at all.

We must, therefore, I consider, reject as invalid the solution which Hegel offers us in the conception of Realised Kind. And there is a further objection. The next category to Kind is the category of the Idea of the True. Since Realised, Kind removes according to Hegel the defects of the category of Kind, it would follow that, when we have reached the conception of Realised Kind, we should find ourselves already to have passed into Cognition, and, more particularly, into the Idea of the True. And this is apparently what Hegel thinks has now happened. He says (continuing the passage quoted above, G. L. iii. 262) “In propagation the immediacy of living individuality dies the death of this life is the emergence of Spirit. The Idea, which. as Kind is implicit (an sich,) is now for itself, since it transcends the particularity, which is produced by the living generations (Geschlechter), and has thus given itself a reality, which is simple universality. Thus it is the Idea which relates itself to itself as Idea, the Universal, which has universality as its determination and definite being (Bestimmtheit und Dasein), the Idea of Cognition.” This, however, does not seem justifiable. BLit before considering this point we must determine exactly what Hegel means by the Idea of Cognition.

275. (G. L. 263. Enc. 223.) He describes it as follows. “The Notion is for itself as Notion, in so far as it exists freely as abstract universality, or as Kind. So it is its pure identity with itself, which so creates such a division in itself, that what is separated is not an Objectivity, but liberates itself and takes the form of Subjectivity, or of a simple equality with self, and thus is the Object (Gegenstand) of the Notion, the Notion itself ... The elevation of the Notion above Life consists in this, that its Reality is the Notion-form, freed and in the form of universality. Through this division (Urtheil) the Idea is doubled, on the one hand the subjective Notion, of which it itself is the Reality, and on the other hand, the objective Notion, which it is as Life. — Thought, Spirit, Self-consciousness, are determinations of the Idea, in so far as it has itself as an Object, and its Determinate Being (Dasein), that is, the determination of its Being (Bestimmtheit ihres Seins), is its own difference from itself” (G. L. iii. 263). This is not very clear, but, with the aid of the concrete states which Hegel takes as examples of this category, we can, I think, see what the logical conception of the category must be. Those examples are a complete system of correct knowledge, and a complete system of ratified volition.

The conception, I believe, is as follows. The whole Universe forms an Organic system. The parts can only be explained or described by reference to the system, and, through the system, to the other members of it, while the unity of the system can only be explained as the unity which does connect those parts. But the fresh element is this — each of these parts, which may now be called Individuals, has within it a system, which corresponds to the larger system — the system of the Universe.

But what sort of correspondence? It cannot be merely that there is one part in each Individual-System for each part in the Universe-System. For that correspondence would be equally exemplified if the Individual judged about each part of the Universe, but judged wrongly, or it’ the Individual willed about each part of the Universe, but willed it to be other than it is.

And it is clear, as we shall see later, that Hegel would not regard such a state as exemplifying the category.

But it is equally clear that the correspondence of the parts does not mean identity of nature. If each part of an Individual-System had the same content with the corresponding part of the Universe-System, then the two systems would have exactly the same nature. For if the parts were exactly the same in the two systems, then the relations between the parts must also be the same. And as the unity in each case is just the unity which is formed by these parts in these relations, the unities would have the same nature in each system. Thus the two systems would be of exactly the same nature, which is impossible, since one is an Individual, which the other is not, and one is the Universe, which the other is not.

The examples, moreover, show that correspondence here does not mean exact similarity in nature. My correct, knowledge that A is courageous does not resemble A’s courage at all closely. Nor, if my will approves the fact that A Is modest, does my gratified volition closely resemble his modesty.

276. If we try to state more positively what this correspondence is, all that we can say, I think, is that each part of the Individual corresponds with a part of the Universe, and each part of the Universe with a part of the Individual; that the correspondence consists of a relation between the natures of the two correspondent terms, which is not a relation of identity; that the relation of a true belief to the fact in which it is a belief is one example of such a correspondence; that the relation of a volition to the fact which gratifies the volition is another example; and that no other example can be given.

For such a correspondence as this the expression “harmony” suggests itself, and we shall, I think, do well to use it. But it must be remembered that harmony does not here indicate the co-operation of two beings for some purpose or design outside themselves. Nor does it indicate any relation which the two harmonious beings jointly bear to a third — as when we say that the sounds of two different instruments unite to form a harmonious whole for the listener. The relation of harmony in this category is simply a relation between the two harmonious beings — the Universe and the Individual — without reference to anything else. (The different Individuals, indeed, are not unconnected with each other, but it is only through their relation with the ‘Universe.)

Thus the advance on the last category consists in the fact that the parts under the category of Cognition, not only, as with Life, form a system which collectively expresses the idea of the system, but, in addition, do this by means of the existence, in each part, of a system in harmony with the system of the whole.

This gives a greater relative prominence, in the new category, to the parts — i.e. the Individuals. For although, since the Universe is an organic system, they only express the idea of that system in so far as, taken together, they form the system, yet it is also the case that each Individual by itself may be said in another sense to be an expression of the Universe, since it contains a system in harmony with the system of the Universe. Whether these two characteristics are compatible will be considered later. At present I merely urge that they are both to be found in the category.

It is probably the greater prominence given to the parts in this category, which causes Hegel to speak of it as an Urtheil (G. L. iii. 262, 263. Enc. 223). For, while he generally rises this word in its ordinary sense of Judgment, he always lays great weight on the fact that etymologically it indicates division.

In reaching the category of Cognition Hegel says that we have left behind the Immediacy which characterised Life. This Immediacy, apparently, consisted in the fact that particular parts might or might not be so arranged as to manifest the Seele of an Organism. From the absence of any necessity that it should be so, he apparently deduced the possibility of an inadequate manifestation — though it would be the impossible to find in it the necessity, which he asserts, that manifestation should be inadequate.

If such an Immediacy did belong to the category of Life, I do not see how it has been eliminated. But the truth seems to be that there is no need to eliminate it, because it should never have been introduced. If Hegel had proved the validity of the category of Life at all. he had proved that the parts not only could, but mast, be arranged in organic unity. That lie should have thought it only a possibility is connected with his view of the possibility and necessity of inadequate manifestations, which we found reason above to reject as erroneous.

277. This, then, is the nature (A tile category to which Hegel passes from the category of Life. Is he justified in the transition? I cannot see that lie is Justified. Ill the first place, the whole of Existence appears, under this category, to form a single organic system. Now in Teleology, as we have seen, Hegel had taken all existence to form one organic system. But he gave this up in Life — gave it up, as I have tried to show above, illegitimately, and misled by biological analogies.

And having once given it up, he has no right to bring it back, except by a fresh demonstration of it, which he does not profess to give us.

Even if we supposed that the Realised Kind was held by Hegel to be an organic unity (a theory which, as I explained above, I think must be rejected) the difficulty would not be removed. For it seems clear that Hegel meant by the Kind something analogous to a biological species, of which there are more than one in the Universe, so that the organic unity of a Kind would not mean that the Universe formed one organic unity. And, moreover, if Hegel had regarded the Realised Kind as an organic unity, his position would have been illegitimate, since the Kind when first introduced is not an organic unity, and no demonstration is given of the validity of a transition. Thus, by basing the organic unity of the Universe in the category of Cognition on the organic unity of the Realised Kind, we should nut avoid an illegitimate transition, but merely throw it a little earlier in the dialectic process.

In the second place, there is a still more fundamental objection to the transition. So far as I can see, there is not the slightest attempt to demonstrate the characteristic which forms the essential difference of Cognition from Life — the existence, in each part, of a system corresponding to the system of’ the whole. The essential characteristic of Realised Kind was the subordination of the particular Organisms to the idea of the Kind. What the connexion is between this and the existence of the systems within Individuals is left in complete obscurity.

Hegel was no doubt justified in naming this category after a concrete state of the human mind. For knowledge, in so far as correct, and volition, in so far as gratified, do form systems which correspond to the objects which are known or which gratify the volition in the way defined above. Indeed, no other examples of this category can, I think, be found. Certainly Hegel does not give any other examples. Indeed, it might be said that he has not completely defined the new category at all, but has left part of the definition implicit in the statement that the correspondence in question is the one of which true knowledge and gratified volition are examples.

278. We have seen in earlier stages of the dialectic that, when categories are named after concrete states, there is considerable risk of falling into error by attributing to the categories characteristics which are true of the concrete states, but which have licit been demonstrated of the categories. Here the difficulty of avoiding this error is greater than elsewhere. In Mechanism and Chemism Hegel is able to give other examples of the category besides those drawn from Mechanics and Chemistry. In Life he, does not himself give ally examples besides those drawn. from biology, but it is possible to supply the deficiency. The unity which is expressed in the different parts of a beautiful object — a Persian rug, for example, or an Adam ceiling — is all example of what Hegel calls an organic unity. And the distinction of the category from the biological state is rendered easier by the fact, which we have remarked, that the biological state is never a perfect example of the category.

Here matters are different. No example of the category has been given, by Hegel or anyone else, except that of a system, each of whose arts is in relation, by. knowledge or volition, p with all the other parts. And this would be a perfect example if the knowledge and volition had reached that perfection towards which all knowledge and volition are directed. And, as mentioned above, it may be held that the category has not been completely defined except by reference to these concrete examples.

The danger of the error is therefore greater here than elsewhere. I do not think, as I shall explain later, that Hegel has entirely avoided it. But it has not affected his argument so seriously as it did in the category of Life.

While it is certainly appropriate to name this category after a state of the human mind, the actual name of Cognition seems unfortunate. Volition, as well as knowledge, is an example of this category, while, as we shall see, volition is the only example of one of its subdivisions. Cognition, then, would only be appropriate if it were possible to stretch its meaning to include Volition, and this does not seem possible, either with the English Cognition, or the German Erkennen. It seems to me that some more general term — perhaps Consciousness — would have been better.

279. Cognition has, according to Hegel, only two subdivisions, Without any Synthesis being explicitly given. These he calls the Idea of the True and the Idea of the Good. In the Encyclopaedia the first of these subdivisions is called Cognition, and the second Volition, the name of Cognition being also used, as in the Greater Logic, for the category as a whole.

Since there is to be a harmony between the Individual-systems and the Universe-system the question naturally arises, which side is active and which side passive. The alternatives, as will be seen later, are not really exhaustive, and neither answer to the question will be finally tenable. But it is, according to Hegel, the natural way in which to begin regarding the matter. If we find two things necessarily agreeing with each other, the natural inference is that one is dependent on the other, or else both on a third. Now here there is no third. There is only the Universe-system on the one hand and the Individual-systems on the other. We seem, therefore, bound to conclude either that the harmony is produced by the nature of the Individuals being dependent on the nature of the Universe, or else by the nature of the Universe being dependent on the nature of the Individuals.

Of these two alternatives we must start with the former. If we took the latter, there would be no guarantee that the Individual-systems, whose nature would then be taken as ultimate, did not differ in such a way that the Universe-system could no t be in harmony with them all. In that case the requirements of the category of Cognition, which Hegel regards as already demonstrated, could not be complied with. But if the single Universe-system is taken as ultimate, and the many Individual-systems are taken as dependent on it, no such difficulty arises.

Hegel therefore starts with the conception of the Universe-system as determining tile Individual-systems, and this gives him