partial, and only partially correct revelation of things as they are now known (or at least taken) to be. That is, one must show how each of the recollectively privileged prior integrations made towards current constellation of commitments—both in the judgments that are progress one’s endorsed and in the consequential and incompatibility relations taken to articulate the concepts applied in those judgments. In current commitments as the standard to judge taking one’s what counts as expressive progress, one taking them as the of which previous is reality constellations of endorsements were ever more complete and accurate That is appearances. the lesson that the normative understanding of the representation relation teaches: what is represented is what serves as a standard for assessing what thereby, in this normative sense, counts as a representing (an appearance) of it. Another way of putting the point is that the way the idea of reference of to appearances an underlying that they represent—the idea that they are appearances some reality that reality of was always already there, objectively (in the sense of being independent of the attitudes that are its appearances)—arises and is secured consciousness itself is through the experience of for through the realization of the untruth of appearances, as Hegel puts it. Prior error is error: acknowledged in each rational integration by engaging in the activity of repairing internally incompatible commitments (as prior ignorance is acknowledged by embracing a new consequence). And using current commitments as the standard for assessing external one’s which such prior developments and adjustments were is treating it as presenting the successful reality, how things are in themselves, that all the others were more or less adequate appearances of. A successful recollective reconstruction of the tradition shows how previously endorsed constellations of commitments were unmasked, by internal instabilities, appearances, as
partial, and only partially correct revelation of things as they are now known (or at least taken) to be. That is, one must show how each of the recollectively privileged prior integrations made progress towards one’s current constellation of commitments—both in the judgments that are endorsed and in the consequential and incompatibility relations taken to articulate the concepts applied in those judgments. In taking one’s current commitments as the standard to judge what counts as expressive progress, one is taking them as the reality of which previous constellations of endorsements were ever more complete and accurate appearances. That is the lesson that the normative understanding of the representation relation teaches: what is represented is what serves as a standard for assessing what thereby, in this normative sense, counts as a representing (an appearance) of it. Another way of putting the point is that the way the idea of reference of appearances to an underlying reality that they represent—the idea that they are appearances of some reality that was always already there, objectively (in the sense of being independent of the attitudes that are its appearances)—arises and is secured for consciousness itself is through the experience of error: through the realization of the untruth of appearances, as Hegel puts it. Prior error is acknowledged internally in each rational integration by engaging in the activity of repairing incompatible commitments (as prior ignorance is acknowledged by embracing a new consequence). And using one’s current commitments as the external standard for assessing which such prior developments and adjustments were successful is treating it as presenting the reality, how things are in themselves, that all the others were more or less adequate appearances of. A successful recollective reconstruction of the tradition shows how previously endorsed constellations of commitments were unmasked, by internal instabilities, as appearances,