Page 23 [23]
chair or not-chair. It does not require long reflection to recognize
the simple truth of this. The contrary, on the other hand, does not
hold true: being the opposite of black-white does not determine
what exact color something is, since this could be red or green, but
cannot be both at the same time. In fact, it may be that neither is
true: it is neither green nor blue. The contradictory, however, is an
excluding contradiction: something is either green or non-green.
It is either-or, as the worthy Sgren Kierkegaard believed.
The identity of the “I” thus means that all that is “not-I” is
conditioned by the “I” because the I defines everything, while
nothing defines it. “Ifthe not-Lis set against the self, and the form
of the self is unconditionality, then the form of the not-I must be
conditional; and it can become the content of a first principle only
insofar as it is assumed by me.”( See ibid p.13.) Based on these first
two, the third basic principle almost necessarily follows:
3.) Unconditionality defines conditionality (Die Unbedingtheit bes¬
timmt die Bedigtheit).
That is, the same assumes the other. Well, we seem to have taken a
step forward with this, and it seems to be a meaningful basis for our
actual world. I determine who or what is “other” when compared
to me (!). Even everyday thinking confirms this.
It is important to note, however, that the same by itself has
no content, as we have said and as Hegel also suggests. Narcissus
has no “self” image, since he has no “he was aloof, hated, and
loved: in himself, as in others, he sought the true essence of per¬
fection.” Narcissus therefore understands nothing. He wanders
in the meadow, hears a sound, but does not understand what the
sound is, does not understand what a flower is, nor what fragrance
is, nor a bird. He does not understand the self because of his lack
of any self-knowledge that would make such reflection possible,
something that he could see himself in relation to. Here Kierkegaard
8 See the chapter titled “The Actor’.