Choose from one of the two provided passages. In no more than 500 words describe Hegel’s argument or point in the passage in as plain English as possible (e.g. imagine you’re explaining it to a non-philosophy major). The is due via email Friday, December 3^rd, by 5 p.m.
Logic, on the contrary, cannot presuppose any of these forms of reﬂection, these rules and laws of thinking, for they are part of its content and they ﬁrst have to be established within it. And it is not just the declaration of scientiﬁc method but the concept itself of science as such that belongs to its content and even makes up its ﬁnal result. Logic, therefore, cannot say what it is in advance, rather does this knowledge of itself only emerge as the ﬁnal result and completion of its whole treatment. Likewise its subject matter, thinking or more speciﬁcally conceptual thinking, is essentially elaborated within it; its concept is generated in the course of this elaboration and cannot therefore be given in advance. What is anticipated in this Introduction, therefore, is not intended to ground as it were the concept of logic, or to justify in advance its content and method scientiﬁcally, but rather to make more intuitable, by means of some explanations and reﬂections of an argumentative and historical nature, the standpoint from which this science ought to be considered. (SL 23/21:27-8)
science, insofar as it comes onto the scene, is itself an appearance; science’s coming onto the scene is not yet science as it is carried out and unfolded in its truth. It makes no difference in this regard whether one thinks that science is an appearance because it comes onto the scene alongside a kind of knowing that is other than it, or whether one calls that other, untrue kind of knowing science’s own appearing. But science must free itself from this surface appearance; and it can do so only by turning itself against it. For with regard to a knowing that is not truthful, science cannot simply reject it as just a common view of things while giving out the assurance that it is itself a completely different kind of cognition and that that other knowing counts as absolutely nothing for science; nor can science appeal to some intimation, contained within that other knowing, of something better. Through such an assurance, science declares its being to be its power; but untrue knowing just as much appeals to the fact that it is, and it gives out the assurance that science counts as nothing to it; but one arid assurance is just as valid as another. (PS 51-2/9:55)