First Response to Diego Lavado Emily Matthews, St. Francis Xavier University

First Response to Diego Lavado Emily Matthews, St. Francis Xavier University

Diego Lavado, in his paper “On Our Birthright: An Exploration of Hegel’s Two Agencies,” explores Hegel’s explanation of human will and reason. Hegel synthesizes will and reason through human passion. Lavado claims that, “even though Hegel knows there is Reason in history, he understands that nothing can be achieved without passion.” Lavado also attributes human freedom as a “birthright.” 1 Understanding Hegel is a puzzle, and from this paper, it is not clear where the pieces of the puzzle fit. Lavado identifies two agencies in Hegel, and describes them as a call to action for our birthright. I will focus on the first agency – “universal objective”. It is not clear what universal objective is, and where it fits in the broader puzzle of human freedom and our birthright.

Lavado explains universal objective, the first agency, as the realization of a universal idea, or truth. He says in a footnote that, “this universal truth is found in the achievement of freedom of self-governance after the agent thinks about the determinations of his actions that are not merely private.” Universal objective 2 seems to be related to private will, for Lavado. Our actions have goals. For example, I may choose to drink coffee because I want more energy. This is a result of my private will. It remains unclear how the pieces of universal objective and private will fit together. Does the result of my private will contribute to the universal objective? However, it seems that human beings are not always aware of the universal objective. This would not give us freedom, but be a limitation. Acting for an end that we are not aware of does not mean we are free, it is implies the opposite – the end is already determined. Choosing the end you wish to act on is essential for individual will. I can choose if I want to have more energy or not, this choice determines the action of drinking coffee.

If human beings have no control over the universal objective, implying it is determined, then we lack autonomy. This raises further questions for me; Where does the universal objective come from? How did come about, and how do we know about it? How can we be sure it is universal if we can act without knowing it (i.e. private freedom)? We must be sometimes aware of the universal objective if we

Lavado, Diego “On Our Birthright: An Exploration of Hegel’s Two Agencies,” Aletheia Undergraduate Jourmal of Philosophy. 2021.

can talk about it, so I am unsure if that means we can choose not to be aware of the universal objective. A traditional way of understanding human beings and freedom is that every rational being will strive for happiness. However, we do not pursue the objective of happiness without being aware of it. We are not going to choose something unless we know it will lead to happiness.

Overall, it is unclear what link universal objective has to freedom. This is especially the case if we not are always aware of the universal objective. Universal objective seems to limit our freedom, not prove it. The pieces of the puzzle do not clearly fit together, and need further explanation. I am left with more questions about universal objective, private will, and our freedom/birthright than answers.